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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds meaningful behavioral and contractual context: the tool is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, is paid via prepaid credit, queries public non-confidential data, and the client is the LGPD data controller. This goes well beyond the 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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds relevant information about source, cost, credentials, data sensitivity, or legal responsibility. There is no filler or 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 description covers the tool's purpose, official source, payment model, and LGPD context, but it lacks parameter semantics and return-value expectations. With no output schema and undocumented parameters, the agent is left without enough detail to safely and correctly invoke the tool in all cases.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the meaning, format, or allowed values of 'ano', 'localidade', or 'tipo'. The description provides no parameter-level guidance, so the agent cannot reliably determine how to fill the arguments, especially 'tipo'.

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 identifies the tool as a consultation/query operation against the official Brazilian transparency portal for fund transfers ('Portal da Transparência: Repasse de Verba, consulta em fonte oficial'). It specifies the resource and action, and it is easily distinguished from the sibling tools (auth, marketplace, bug reporting, etc.).

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 gives useful context for when to use the tool: to query official Brazilian public data available to citizens, with no platform credentials and prepaid per-query billing. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough and no sibling tool competes for the same purpose.

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