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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds value beyond that by disclosing that the tool is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, incurs a per-query cost with prepaid credit, returns non-confidential data, and places LGPD controller responsibility on the client. These are meaningful operational and legal behaviors not covered by 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 relatively concise, front-loads the main purpose ('consulta em fonte oficial'), and uses clear sentences. It includes some legal/financial details that could be seen as extraneous, but they are brief and do not significantly bloat the text.

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?

While the description provides the high-level purpose and some operational context (payment, LGPD), it omits essential information about the input parameters (CPF/RGP) and the return format (no output schema either). This leaves the tool under-specified for reliable invocation, especially given the complete absence of parameter semantics.

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?

The input schema has two parameters (cpf, rgp) with zero description coverage, and the description does not mention either parameter or explain what they mean or how to format them. The agent is given no semantic guidance for constructing a valid query, making the tool effectively unusable without external knowledge.

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 identifies the tool as a query ('consulta') for official Brazilian sources and bodies, with a specific resource ('fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros'). It distinguishes from siblings like authenticate or marketplace, though it does not specify exactly what kind of data is returned (e.g., CPF/RGP records), leaving some ambiguity.

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 usage context is implied: this tool is for querying public, non-confidential Brazilian official data, and use is paid via prepaid credit. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (though none are obvious among siblings) or what conditions warrant not using it. The LGPD responsibility note gives legal context but not direct usage direction.

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