Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful business context: payment via prepaid credit, no platform credentials, and LGPD data-controller responsibility. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like rate limits, response size, or any need for specific authentication beyond the provided login fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single paragraph that mixes purpose with payment and legal details. It front-loads the core purpose but includes ancillary information that could be condensed. It is not overly long, but the legal and payment aspects could be seen as noise for an agent focused on querying data.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what each parameter does, what the response contains, or how pagination works. It only vaguely mentions 'consulta' without detailing the expected data structure, leaving significant gaps for correct usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of any of the 8 parameters. Parameter names like 'pkcs12_cert' and 'codigo_imovel' are left undefined, forcing the agent to guess their meaning. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: consulting INCRA SIGEF parcel data from official Brazilian sources. It specifies the resource ('Parcelas') and the verb 'consulta' (query). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the purpose is distinct from authentication, connection, or marketplace tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides some context (e.g., payment with prepaid credit, official source) but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or when not to use it, relying on the tool's name and general context to imply suitability.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.