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

Annotations already cover safety (read-only, non-destructive). Description adds useful behavioral context: hosting model, payment requirement, data governance (LGPD) and that data is not confidential, which goes beyond the structured 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 efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose, though the legal/payment details add length. It remains reasonably concise and structured.

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?

Given 3 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description explains the purpose and payment model but leaves parameter semantics and expected response ambiguous. Adequate for a simple lookup but not fully complete.

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 has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (cpf, cnpj, tipo_certidao). No semantic meaning is added beyond the bare property names, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Description states the specific action ('consulta' for CND), the specific resource (Prefeitura AP Macapá Certidão Negativa de Débitos), and clearly distinguishes from generic sibling tools like authenticate or show_version.

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?

Provides context on how to use (paid per query, no platform credentials needed) and what data source is queried (official Brazilian sources). Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the specificity makes it clear it's for this particular certificate.

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