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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses payment requirements, data source, confidentiality status, and LGPD obligations. These are operational details not captured in the schema or annotations, and they align with the readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive 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 concise, with three sentences covering purpose, operational details, and legal context. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids redundancy, making efficient use of each sentence.

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 context such as cost, source, and legality, but it does not clarify the exact input format (CPF vs CNPJ) or what the output will be. Given that there is no output schema, a hint about the return value would improve completeness, but the description still provides enough for a basic query tool.

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 has two parameters (cpf and cnpj) with no descriptions, and the tool description does not explain their meaning, which one is required, or if either can be used. It only implies that they are identifiers for the certificate query. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should have clarified parameter usage but did not.

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: consulting Negative Debt Certificates (Certidão Negativa de Débitos) from the Prefeitura GO Catalão. It names the specific resource and operation, and it is distinct from the generic sibling tools like authenticate or connect.

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 how to use the tool: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, and is paid per query with prepaid credit. It also mentions the official source and LGPD compliance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but given the generic siblings, the use case is clear.

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