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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the query is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, incurs prepaid per-query costs, and returns the same public information available to citizens. It also clarifies data controller responsibilities under LGPD, which goes beyond the annotation basics.

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 three sentences and reasonably dense, with the core purpose in the first sentence. The LGPD and payment details add useful context rather than filler, although some legal phrasing could be trimmed without losing critical information.

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?

With five parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers source, pricing, and data governance but omits expected return values/result format and guidance on the optional credential parameters. It is adequate for a simple public-data query but incomplete for full invocation confidence.

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 needed to explain the parameters. It does not clarify the CNPJ format or the purpose of optional fields like login_cpf, login_senha, pkcs12_cert, and pkcs12_pass. The note about 'no platform credentials' is useful but does not compensate for the undocumented credential-related parameters.

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 states a specific action and resource: consulting the situation/regularity of a private security company via the Federal Police official source. The tool name 'pf_regularidade_empresa_consultar' and the opening sentence align, and it is clearly distinguishable from the generic sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.).

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 context—official Brazilian source, paid per query with prepaid credit, no platform credentials, and non-confidential data—but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative tools referenced, so guidance is only implied.

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