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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent), the description adds payment model, absence of platform credentials, LGPD/controller responsibility, and the fact that data is the same non-confidential data available to citizens. This is valuable behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and is reasonably compact. It repeats 'official source' twice, but each sentence contributes distinct context: purpose, payment/hosting, and LGPD responsibility.

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?

With 9 parameters, no parameter descriptions, and no output schema, the description is not sufficient for reliable invocation. It provides high-level purpose and compliance context but omits operational details like query filters, pagination, and credential handling.

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 does not explain any of the 9 string parameters. The only hint is that login_cpf/login_senha are not platform credentials, but there is no guidance on cpf, cnpj, protocolo, codigo_imovel, pagina, or pkcs12 fields.

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 states a specific query action: 'Requerimentos, consulta em fonte oficial' and identifies the resource as INCRA SIGEF requerimentos. It also clarifies that it queries information from official Brazilian sources, distinguishing it from generic tools and siblings.

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 implies the tool is for querying official public data and notes it is a paid, prepaid-credit consultation with no platform credentials. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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