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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent. The description adds value by disclosing payment requirements (prepaid credit per query), lack of platform credentials, official non-sensitive data nature, and LGPD data controller responsibilities—details not captured in 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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then adds essential operational details. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no 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?

While it covers purpose, payment, and data responsibility, it lacks explanation of the output (what the consultation returns) and does not clarify parameter selection (CPF vs CNPJ). Given no output schema, the description should indicate expected results, leaving incomplete context.

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 schema defines 'cpf' and 'cnpj' as strings with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention these parameters at all, leaving the agent without guidance on which identifier to provide or expected formats. This is a critical gap.

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 for a negative debt certificate (Certidão Negativa de Débitos) from the Caucaia city hall, using the verb 'consultar' and specific resource. It is distinct from the generic sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.) which serve platform-level functions.

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 when to use: for official Brazilian source queries, with prepaid credit and no platform credentials. It implies usage for CND verification but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. Since no similar sibling tools exist, this is adequate context.

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