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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds behavioral details such as no credentials being required, payment through prepaid credit, and LGPD data-control obligations. It aligns with the read-only/idempotent hints and adds useful operational context, though it does not fully describe response or error behavior.

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 compact and informative: purpose, hosting/payment, data source, and LGPD responsibility are each covered in short clauses. Every part contributes useful detail, though the sequencing of 'Hospedado pela plataforma' after the initial purpose could be slightly clearer.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers purpose, access, cost, and data privacy constraints. However, since there is no output schema, the lack of any mention of what the consultation returns is a meaningful gap. The description is minimally viable but not fully 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% and the description never mentions the 'placa' parameter. It does not clarify plate format, validation, or examples. The parameter name itself is reasonably self-documenting, but the description fails to compensate for the absence of schema-level parameter information.

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?

Description states the tool performs a 'consulta' (query) of 'Pedágio Digital' using an official source, and further explains it fetches information from official Brazilian agencies available to citizens. This distinguishes it from the generic sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.), though it does not explicitly describe exactly which toll-related data gets returned.

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 gives clear context: the tool is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, and costs prepaid credit per query. It also clarifies the data is non-confidential and official, which helps an agent know when the tool is appropriate. It stops short of explicitly pointing to alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sibling list contains no similar query tool.

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