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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns by clarifying the tool only reads public data and does not expose confidential information. It adds context about the platform hosting and the prepaid credit model, which goes beyond typical uses. However, it doesn't explain what the response looks like or if there are rate limits, slightly missing the opportunity to fully complement the 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 a single paragraph that's packed with information, but it's dense and includes legal jargon (LGPD) not immediately relevant to function. The crucial detail about the tool's purpose is buried mid-sentence. It could be reorganized for clarity.

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?

Despite the low schema coverage, the description thoroughly explains the tool's context: it queries official sources, is not for sensitive data, and clarifies data controller responsibilities. It provides enough non-exhaustive context for an agent to decide when to use it. The trade-off between a rich description and absent parameter documentation makes it a bit imbalanced.

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 the two parameters (cpf, cnpj) at all. With no hints in the description, the agent must rely on the parameter names alone. This is a significant miss since the tool's core purpose (making a query) is only implied.

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 purpose: to query 'Certidão Negativa de Feitos' for MPT AP e PA in an official source. It names the resource (official Brazilian sources), includes specific details like 'CNF' and jurisdiction, and differentiates from siblings by specifying the source's official nature. However, it is verbose with legal/LGPD text that doesn't directly clarify the tool's core function.

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 the tool is used for querying official Brazilian records and is not for confidential data, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. It includes some context about credential access and payment method but lacks a direct recommendation or comparison to sibling tools. The phrase 'mesma disponível ao cidadão' hints at proper use but isn't a clear usage guideline.

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