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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be non-destructive and idempotent. The description adds that it is hosted by the platform, requires prepaid credit per consultation, and that the client is the data controller under LGPD. This adds useful context about cost and legal responsibility, but no mention of specific return formats or error conditions. It does not contradict 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 a single long sentence but contains essential information: source, type of certificate, payment model, legal compliance. It's somewhat dense but front-loaded with the main purpose. It could be split into clearer sentences, but it's not overly verbose for the amount of context it provides.

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 tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain what the response will contain. However, since it's a certificate consultation, the response is likely the certificate data or a status. The description covers cost, legal aspects, and source, but not detailed behavior or expected output format. Given the lack of output schema and parameter descriptions, the tool description is partially complete but misses key operational details like which parameters are used for individuals vs companies.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning of the 6 parameters beyond what the schema shows. The parameters include cpf, cnpj, finalidade, and requester fields, but the description does not clarify which are required for which scenarios (e.g., CPF vs CNPJ). It mentions 'consulta' and 'finalidade legítima' but not the 'finalidade' parameter's purpose. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent to guess parameter usage.

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 purpose: to consult Certidão Negativa de Débitos (negative debt certificate) from Prefeitura MS Naviraí, a specific municipal government source. It specifies the resource (certidão) and the action (consultar). It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but siblings are mostly platform-level tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.), so the purpose is clear enough.

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 when to use the tool: for consulting official Brazilian government sources, it's not confidential data, and it requires prepaid credit. It implies it's for debt certificate lookup specifically. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives, but it gives a clear context of use under LGPD and payment terms.

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