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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the read-only and non-destructive nature. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: payment requirement (prepaid credit), absence of platform credentials, and LGPD data controller responsibilities. This enriches the behavioral profile 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 a single paragraph, efficiently front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains some repeated concepts (e.g., 'fonte oficial' and 'fontes oficiais') but is not verbose. The structure is clear, though it could be slightly more streamlined without losing meaning.

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 tool is a simple query with two unannotated parameters and no output schema. The description fails to clarify what the result will be (e.g., a certificate document) or the required inputs. It also omits any mention of the parameter constraints, making it incomplete for effective use. With no output schema and minimal annotation, the description should have compensated but did not.

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 input schema has two parameters (cpf, cnpj) with no descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention these parameters at all, nor does it explain the format or necessity of CPF/CNPJ. With zero compensation from the description, the agent lacks essential parameter guidance, resulting in a minimal score.

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's function: 'consulta em fonte oficial' (consultation in official source) of a 'Certidão Negativa de Débitos' (Negative Debt Certificate) for Prefeitura BA Ilheus. It uses a specific verb (consulta) and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.) by specifying the municipal domain.

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 usage: hosted by platform, no platform credentials required, pay per consultation with prepaid credit, and LGPD compliance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The purpose is clear enough but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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