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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context about billing (prepaid credit), data sourcing (official Brazilian sources), and LGPD responsibilities, which goes beyond the annotations and helps an agent understand side effects and legal constraints.

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 compact paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and follows with operational details. Every sentence adds information about hosting, payment, data source, or legal responsibility, with no filler or repetition.

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 purpose, operational model, and legal context well, but it omits parameter usage and return-value description (no output schema). For a simple two-param query tool, this is a notable omission, though the overall context is solid.

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 defines 'cpf' and 'cnpj' with no descriptions, and the description does not mention either parameter. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent uncertain which parameter to provide or whether one is required. 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 states the tool performs a 'Certidão Negativa de Débitos' query for Firminópolis GO, using 'consulta' as the verb and naming the specific resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are generic platform utilities like authenticate and 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 clear contextual use signals: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, charges per query via prepaid credit, and accesses official Brazilian sources. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no direct alternatives exist among the provided siblings.

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