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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that no RENAVAM is required, which is a usage constraint rather than a behavior. It does not mention output format, pagination, or any side effects, but given the annotations cover the main safety aspects, this is adequate. It adds a bit of context (what data is returned) but falls short of describing behaviors like response structure.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key differentiator. There is zero fluff, and it is immediately understandable. It front-loads the primary action and condition effectively.

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 is simple (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is mostly complete: it states the resource (vehicle by plate) and the outcome (data and debts). However, the unexplained 'completo' parameter creates a hole in completeness. Also, it doesn't specify any prerequisites (e.g., plate format) or return details, though for a simple query this might be acceptable. The tool belongs to a set of investigation tools, and the description differentiates it via the RENAVAM requirement, but it doesn't provide enough for a user to fully know the tool's behavior.

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 carries full burden for explaining parameters. It implicitly clarifies PLACA (plate) via 'pela placa', but the 'completo' boolean parameter is completely unexplained. The user has no idea what 'completo' controls (e.g., include all details or just summary). This is a significant gap for one of two parameters.

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 what the tool does: it returns data and debts of a vehicle from its plate. It also differentiates from siblings by noting 'não exige RENAVAM', which indicates it works without that identifier. However, 'dados e débitos' is somewhat generic, and the scope of 'data' is not specified, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 usage when the user only has the plate and no RENAVAM, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool. Siblings like investigacao_historico_veicular or investigacao_propriedade_veicular exist, but no comparison is given. Thus, usage guidance is implied but not explicit.

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