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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses payment per consultation, no platform credentials, non-confidential data, and LGPD responsibility. This adds meaningful behavioral context that annotations do not cover.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds essential context (hosting, payment, data source, compliance). No wasteful words.

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 no output schema, the description covers key aspects like payment and data sensitivity, but does not describe the expected result format or behavior on invalid input. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 has no parameter descriptions and 0% coverage, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention cpf or cnpj at all, although the names are self-explanatory. The lack of guidance on which parameter to use and whether one or both are required is a significant 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 identifies the tool as a consultation for a Negative Debt Certificate from the municipality of Mataraca, PB, using an official source. It specifies the verb 'consultar' and the resource, distinguishing it from generic sibling tools like authenticate and 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 when to use the tool (for official Brazilian citizen-accessible data) and mentions payment requirements and lack of platform credentials. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but siblings are unrelated, so the guidance is adequate.

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