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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond this: it is a paid consultation, does not use platform credentials, returns non-confidential citizen-available data, and places LGPD responsibility on the client. This meaningfully supplements the annotation-based safety profile.

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 front-loads the core purpose in the first clause and keeps the overall length moderate. It includes necessary legal/commercial context, though 'fonte oficial' and 'fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros' are somewhat redundant.

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 description covers purpose, access model, data sensitivity, and legal responsibility, but it omits parameter usage guidance and any indication of the response format. With six parameters and no output schema, this leaves noticeable gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 carries the burden for explaining parameters, but it does not mention or clarify login_cpf, login_senha, cpf, cnpj, pkcs12_cert, or pkcs12_pass. Some parameter names are partially self-explanatory, but the distinction between login credentials and query target fields is left entirely to the agent.

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 consulting the official MTE Labor Debt Certificate source ('MTE: Certidão de Débitos Trabalhistas, consulta em fonte oficial'). This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from generic siblings like authenticate, connect, and marketplace.

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 when to use the tool (to query an official Brazilian labor debt certificate) and adds practical constraints like prepaid credit and no platform credentials. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.

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