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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool is hosted, requires no credentials, is paid per query, and accesses only non-confidential public data. It also discloses LGPD data controller responsibilities, which goes beyond the 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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence. Subsequent sentences add necessary operational and legal context (payment, credentials, data source, LGPD) without being overly verbose. Each sentence contributes distinct information.

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 simple read-only query tool with two string parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers critical operational aspects (payment, credentials), data nature (official, non-confidential), and legal context (LGPD). The only notable omission is parameter documentation, which was already penalized in parameter semantics.

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 includes cpf and cnpj as string parameters with no descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain these parameters, their expected formats, or when to use one over the other. This is a significant gap, as the agent cannot infer parameter semantics from the tool description alone.

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 Certidão Negativa de Débitos (negative debt certificate) from Prefeitura MG Araújos through an official source. The verb 'consulta' combined with the specific resource distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace.

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 context for use: it is hosted on the platform, requires no platform credentials, and is paid per query with prepaid credit. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling tools are generic platform utilities, so no direct alternative exists. The guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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