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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds operational details: hosted by platform, prepaid credit required, data is non-confidential, and LGPD compliance, enriching transparency without contradicting annotations.

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, with four sentences that front-load the purpose and then add relevant operational and legal context. It avoids unnecessary verbosity while covering key points.

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 one-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, source, payment, and legal aspects. However, it omits parameter clarification and response format details, leaving some ambiguity about expected behavior and output.

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 'convenente' parameter, and schema coverage is 0%, leaving the agent without any guidance on what value to provide. This is a critical gap for a single required parameter.

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 the tool queries the Transparency Portal for Convênios and Acordos, using the verb 'consulta' and a specific resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate or connect by specifying it accesses official Brazilian data.

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 on when to use the tool (for official data, pay-per-query, no platform credentials) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It implies usage for agreement queries, which is clear enough for an agent.

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