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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint, and idempotence. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a paid query (prepaid credits), requires no platform credentials, and the data is non-confidential but governed by LGPD. This goes beyond annotations. However, it does not mention potential rate limits or failure modes, so not a 5.

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 paragraph with several sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes additional context (payment, hosting, LGPD) that is relevant but not strictly concise. It could be trimmed, but it remains informative without redundancy.

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 tool has 7 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema. The description does not explain how parameters are used, what a successful response looks like, or any limitations. Given the complexity, the description is insufficient for an agent to construct a proper query or interpret results.

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%, but the description names the license types (CLCB, AVCB, TAACB) which maps to the first three parameters. However, it does not explain the address/municipality parameters or how they combine, nor does it clarify that these are search filters. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 it is a consultation tool for Polícia Militar SP fire department licenses (CLCB, AVCB, TAACB) and specifies the official source. The verb 'consulta' and the resource (licenses) are explicit, and it distinguishes itself from generic sibling tools by naming the specific license types.

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 context (hosted by platform, payment via prepaid credits, official source) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It implies usage for license verification but lacks clear exclusions or alternative tool references. Sibling tools are generic, so no direct competition, but guidelines could be stronger.

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