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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral details: it is a paid consultation using prepaid credit, requires no platform credentials, accesses only public non-secret data, and places LGPD-related controller responsibility on the client. This materially clarifies what happens and the obligations involved.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds relevant operational context about payment, confidentiality, and LGPD. A few phrases are slightly boilerplate or redundant, but every part contributes useful context.

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, the description covers purpose, official source, payment, authentication expectations, and data confidentiality. The main gap is parameter behavior, especially because the schema provides no descriptions and there is no output schema to compensate.

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 unannotated string parameters, cpf and cnpj, with 0% description coverage and zero required parameters. The description does not explain whether one must be provided, whether both are allowed, which identifier applies in which scenario, or what formats are accepted. This makes correct invocation ambiguous.

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 is a consulta (query) of a Certidão Negativa de Débitos (CND) from Prefeitura MG Uberaba, using an official source. This is specific enough to distinguish it from the generic sibling tools like authenticate, connect, marketplace, and report_bug.

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 usage context: no platform credentials are needed, queries are paid via prepaid credit, and only official non-confidential data is accessed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or list exclusion cases, but the context is strong enough for correct selection.

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