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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, not destructive), the description discloses payment model (prepaid credit), legal responsibility (LGPD), data classification (not confidential), and hosting details. This meaningfully adds behavioral context that annotations don't cover, such as cost implications and compliance requirements.

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 dense paragraph with mixed content: tool purpose, payment, legal disclaimers, and data governance. While all points are relevant, it could be more structured and front-loaded with the core function, making it less scannable than ideal.

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 query tool with strong annotations, the description covers the essentials: what, where, cost, and legal framing. The lack of output schema and simple input mean the risk of missing critical information is low, and it adequately equips an agent to decide on invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented 'cpf' parameter, but it never mentions CPF or explains what input is needed. The parameter name is self-explanatory to a Brazilian audience, but the description misses the opportunity to clarify purpose, format, or constraints.

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's a consultation tool for the Child Labor Eradication Program (PETI) on the Transparency Portal, with a specific verb ('consultar') and resource. It distinguishes itself from generic siblings like 'authenticate' or 'marketplace' by naming the official database, though it could be more explicit about the exact data fields queried.

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?

Implied usage context is present: pay-per-query, no platform credentials needed, and legitimacy under LGPD. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, which is partially mitigated by the fact that siblings are unrelated platform tools.

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