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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds important context: paid per-query with pre-paid credits, hosted on platform without platform credentials, data is not confidential but client is data controller under LGPD. This goes beyond annotations, clarifying cost and legal responsibilities, which is valuable.

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 concise paragraph, front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes necessary context about payment and legal compliance, but could be considered slightly dense. No wasted sentences, but it might benefit from breaking up into structured info.

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 has 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient to fully use the tool. It explains the business model and legal aspects but omits parameter guidance and return value expectations. For a complex query tool, it's incomplete.

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%, so the description should compensate for the six parameters, but it only mentions 'marca' implicitly and not even explicitly. No parameter names or meanings are explained. The description is entirely silent on what 'ncl', 'tipo', 'pagina', 'pedidos_vivos', 'pesquisa_textual' mean, leaving agents with bare names.

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 the tool performs trademark queries in the official INPI source, distinguishing it from generic search tools. It clearly identifies the resource (INPI trademarks) and the action (consult). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling trademark tools, but siblings provided are unrelated (authenticate, connect, etc.), so no conflict.

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 mentions it's for consulting official Brazilian sources and that it's hosted on the platform with pre-paid credits, implying when to use it (paid queries). However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, though the context of paid credits and official data is useful.

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