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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it mentions no platform credentials, prepaid credit payment, that data is not confidential, and LGPD responsibilities. This supplements the declared readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true without contradiction, though it doesn't cover all edge cases like rate limits or error handling.

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 concise, consisting of three sentences that front-load the main purpose and then add relevant context. Each sentence contributes value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the core function, payment model, and legal context, but omits details about the output format, any required prerequisites beyond credentials, or potential limitations. Given the tool has no output schema and minimal param documentation, additional detail would improve completeness, although the description is adequate for a simple query.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate by explaining the parameters (placa, login_usuario, login_senha). It does not mention them at all, leaving the agent to infer their purpose from names and tool purpose. This is a significant gap.

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 queries DEKRA vehicle reports LCD (damage classification) from an official source. The verb 'consulta' and resource 'Laudos Veiculares DEKRA: LCD' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like authenticate or show_version.

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 for querying official Brazilian vehicle damage reports but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. It provides context around payment and legal responsibility but lacks direct usage guidance.

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