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

Annotations clearly mark this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful context on billing, credentials (no platform credentials needed, pre-paid credit per query), data governance (LGPD compliance, user is data controller), and the nature of the data (public, non-confidential). This enriches the agent's understanding of the invocation context. A slight deduction because it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication details, or what the exact response contains, but overall it contributes good value.

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 concise paragraph covering the key points: source, official nature, payment method, data governance, and LGPD compliance. It is slightly dense with legal text but remains focused. It could be more concise by removing redundancies, but it is not bloated.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness by covering authentication, payment, data scope, and legal responsibilities. It lacks information about response format or error cases, but for a simple query tool with rich annotations, this is sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions. However, the parameter names (ie, cda, cpf, cnpj, renavam, cnpj_base) are self-explanatory for a Brazilian tax query tool. The description does not add semantic meaning beyond the names, but in this case the names are widely understood. Since no parameters are required, the agent can make a selection. A score of 4 is given because the description, combined with conventional schemas, allows confident invocation, though explicit documentation would have been better.

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 names the tool as 'PGE SP: Dívida Ativa, consulta em fonte oficial', which clearly identifies the resource (Dívida Ativa) and the action (consulta, 'query'). However, it is phrased more like a title and does not use a direct verb like 'Retrieve' or 'Search', and it does not distinguish from siblings besides implying a source. It is adequate but not specific enough to clearly separate from other potential Dívida Ativa 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?

The description mentions the source is official and that no platform credentials are needed, implying usage. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other state agencies, related queries), and no exclusions or when-not-to-use instructions. It is not misleading, but it fails to guide the agent on selection criteria.

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