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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it does not require platform credentials, it is a prepaid per-query service, the data is not confidential, and the client is the data controller under LGPD. This goes beyond what annotations provide without contradicting them.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by relevant operational and legal caveats. Each sentence adds meaningful context, though the LGPD and billing details could arguably be condensed.

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 query tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: official source, non-secret data, payment model, and legal responsibility. It does not detail response format, but the lack of an output schema lowers the burden and the description still gives the reader a solid mental model.

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 schema has one required parameter (cpf) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention CPF format, validation, or how the input is used. The description provides domain context (CEAF expulsion records) but does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 explicitly identifies the tool as a consultation of the CEAF registry on the official Portal da Transparência, using a specific verb ('consulta') and a specific resource. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling platform tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace.

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 clear usage context: it is a hosted, read-only consultation of official Brazilian data, requires no platform credentials, and is paid for with prepaid credit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection among the unrelated sibling tools.

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