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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes beyond by disclosing important behavioral traits: 'sem credenciais' (no auth), 'pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago' (cost per query), and 'ACESSO PÚBLICO' (data sensitivity). It also notes legal responsibilities under LGPD, which is valuable context for the agent.

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, front-loaded paragraph with three sentences. Each sentence adds value (purpose, cost/auth, data classification). It includes some legal boilerplate that could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient and not repetitive.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the main contextual aspects: purpose, hosting, payment, authentication, data sensitivity, and compliance. The main gap is the missing explanation of the 'completo' parameter and any return format, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is nearly complete.

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. It explains the purpose of 'Nome' and 'IE' via 'por nome e inscrição', but leave 'completo' completely unexplained. This is a partial coverage: two of three parameters are semantically described, but the third remains ambiguous.

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: 'Consulta o cadastro nacional de advogados na OAB por nome e inscrição'—a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are about authentication, marketplace, etc., by being a public registry lookup.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Consulta o cadastro nacional de advogados'), along with operational details like no credentials needed, prepaid credit required, and public data access. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but among the sibling tools there are no equivalent competitors, making the usage context sufficient.

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