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

Annotations already declare the tool is read-only and idempotent. The description goes beyond this by adding that no platform credentials are needed, it's pay-per-query with prepaid credit, and it involves LGPD compliance responsibilities. This adds meaningful behavioral context about cost, authentication, and legal obligations, which are not present in the annotations. Minor omission: no mention of rate limits or response format, but the added value is significant.

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 with clear front-loading of the main purpose ('MPT PI: Certidão Negativa de Feitos, consulta em fonte oficial') followed by additional context on hosting, payment, and legal aspects. It is concise and well-structured for the information it conveys. The only minor deduction is the slightly run-on nature of the LGPD sentence, but overall it's focused and efficient.

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?

For a simple read-only query tool, the description adequately covers the purpose, data source, payment, and legal responsibility, which are the key aspects an agent needs to decide when to use it. However, it omits any mention of the required parameters and whether they are mutually exclusive, which is essential for correct invocation. Since there is no output schema, the tool bears full responsibility for parameter clarity, and that is missing, pulling the completeness down.

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, but it does not mention 'cpf' or 'cnpj' at all. While a Brazilian audience might infer these are tax identifiers, the description provides no guidance on when to use one versus the other or their format. This is a clear gap for a tool with no parameter documentation.

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 'Certidão Negativa de Feitos' (Negative Certificate of Records) from MPT PI, using the verb 'consulta' (query) plus the specific resource. This makes it distinct from the sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.) which serve entirely different functions. The purpose is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool's name.

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 by mentioning it consults official Brazilian sources and is for legitimate purposes under LGPD, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or any exclusions. It gives contextual clues (e.g., payment per query) but lacks explicit guidance on when this tool should be chosen over others. This is 'implied usage' rather than explicit direction.

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