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

The annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds valuable context beyond that: billing via prepaid credits, no platform credentials required, the data is public/non-confidential, and the client is the LGPD data controller. No contradictions with annotations.

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 in the first clause and is relatively short. Each additional sentence adds relevant operational or legal context (hosting, payment, data source, LGPD). It could be tighter, but it stays within a reasonable length and avoids redundancy.

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 no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description should explain how to invoke the tool, but it only presents high-level operational context. It does not clarify how CPF, CNPJ, or other fields are used together, what the response contains, or what 'pagina' and 'numero_mp' refer to. This is insufficient for dependable agent usage.

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 6 parameters (cpf, cnpj, nome, pagina, numero_mp, nome_exato). There is no guidance on parameter combinations, formats, or meaning (especially ambiguous ones like 'pagina' and 'numero_mp'), so the agent cannot reliably construct queries.

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's action and resource: 'Inquérito Civil, consulta em fonte oficial' (Civil Inquiry, query in official source). It explicitly identifies the domain (Ministério Público SP) and distinguishes itself from the generic sibling tools like authenticate, marketplace, and report_bug.

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 context: paid per query with prepaid credits, official Brazilian sources, and data equivalent to what citizens can access. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The context is helpful but the guidance is implicit.

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