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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds valuable context on authentication (no credentials), cost (prepaid credit per query), and legal responsibilities (LGPD, client as data controller). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 moderately sized paragraph that front-loads the main purpose, then adds operational context. Each sentence provides unique information (data source, auth, cost, legal note), so there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, and the description covers purpose, auth, cost, and legal aspects, but it does not explain the return format or the role of all required parameters. It is complete enough for a simple public query tool, but the missing parameter details and response semantics leave some gaps.

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 must compensate. It only mentions CPF and name, while there are 6 parameters with 5 required (including NomeMae, NomePai, Alcunha). It does not explain why these additional fields are needed or what 'completo' does, leaving significant gaps for parameter understanding.

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 checks for open arrest warrants in the CNJ National Database using CPF and name. It uses a specific verb ('Verifica'), names the resource, and distinguishes itself from the unrelated sibling tools (authenticate, marketplace, etc.).

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 clear context on when to use the tool: to query public arrest warrant data by CPF and name. It also notes that credentials are not needed, it's pay-per-query, and the data is public access, implying it is not for private/confidential data. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions beyond this, so it misses a full when/when-not structure.

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