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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description reinforces this with 'consulta'. It goes beyond by disclosing the financial cost per query, that data is not confidential, and the client's LGPD accountability—critical operational and legal traits not present in the annotations. No contradiction with structured data.

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 tight and front-loaded: the first clause states exactly what the tool does, followed by essential commercial and legal caveats. Every sentence carries weight—hosting, credentials, pricing, data classification, and compliance—without redundancy. It's a model of concise, informative tool documentation.

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 such a simple tool (2 optional strings, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, costs, credentials, and legality quite well. However, the total absence of parameter guidance means the agent cannot reliably construct a request. It's borderline adequate for a human familiar with CPF/CNPJ, but not fully complete for autonomous execution.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no mention of 'cpf' or 'cnpj' in the description, the agent gets no help on how to fill the two required-for-use string fields. The description doesn't clarify whether both are needed, which takes precedence, or even hint at their meaning. Given the low coverage, the description fails to compensate for this 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 queries 'Certidão Negativa de Débitos' from 'Prefeitura MG Juatuba' as an official source. The verb 'consulta' and the resource are explicit, and the sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.) are entirely unrelated, so this tool is well-differentiated. The purpose is unambiguous even without the title.

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 key usage context: pay-per-query with prepaid credit, no platform credentials needed, and it queries only official public data. This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate (free of auth, costs money) but doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, though the sibling list doesn't offer a direct competitor. The LGPD note also guides responsible use.

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