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

The annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that no platform credentials are needed and that it is a paid service, which are extra behavioral traits. It doesn't mention error handling or rate limits, but it does provide some extra context.

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 relatively short but includes some repetitive phrases and legal wording. The main purpose is clear in the first sentence, but the additional detail about hosting and payment could be more concise. Still, it's acceptable.

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 lacks information about the response format or what the tool returns. It also doesn't clarify which parameters are required. Given the tool's simplicity, it might be enough, but it could be more 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?

The description does not explain the four parameters (cpf, pagina, cnpj_base, numero_inscricao). Since the schema provides no descriptions, the description should compensate but doesn't, leaving parameter semantics 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 that the tool consults active debt information from the State Attorney General's Office of Ceará, using official sources. It also clarifies that it's the same data available to citizens, making the purpose specific and distinctive from the generic sibling tools.

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?

It provides context that it's hosted on the platform, requires no platform credentials, and is a paid consultation, which helps when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but given the sibling tools are generic, it's sufficient. It also mentions LGPD compliance, indicating legal use.

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