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

Annotations already declare the operation safe (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds meaningful behavioral context: each query consumes prepaid credit (cost implication), no platform credentials are needed, data is non-confidential public info, and client bears LGPD responsibility. No contradiction with 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?

A single run-on paragraph mixing core purpose with payment terms, privacy disclaimers, and LGPD compliance. The key functional detail is buried under boilerplate; could be tightened to two sentences without losing value.

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 4-param tool with no output schema or enums, the description must clarify how to fill required fields and what the response means; it does neither. The LGPD mention hints at finalidade/interesse, but the agent still doesn't know what values to pass or what to expect back.

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% for all 4 parameters (cpf, cnpj, interesse, finalidade), and the description provides zero compensation—no format, required selection between cpf/cnpj, or meaning of finalidade/interesse. Since coverage is far below 50%, description had to compensate but didn't.

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 this tool queries Certidão Negativa de Débitos (tax clearance certificate) for Anápolis city from official sources. The specific verb 'consulta' (query) plus a concrete resource distinguishes it from generic siblings like 'connect' and 'authenticate'.

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?

No explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. While it mentions pay-per-query and LGPD responsibility, it never clarifies when to choose this tool over others or what triggers its use—only vague context that it queries official Brazilian sources.

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