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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: no platform credentials needed, prepaid credit billing, public non-confidential data, and customer responsibility under LGPD. This supplements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint with operational and legal details, though it does not cover rate limits or failure modes.

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 appropriately sized, with the main purpose stated first and additional context in the following sentences. It covers purpose, hosting, billing, and legal responsibility without verbosity, though the final LGPD sentence could be seen as slightly tangential.

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 description provides good operational and legal context (billing, LGPD, public data) but omits any mention of the return value, which is significant given the absence of an output schema. The lack of parameter documentation further reduces completeness for a tool with only three fields.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain what CPF, CNPJ, or inscrição mean or when to use each. The agent would be completely in the dark about how to populate the required 'inscricao' field or choose between CPF and CNPJ.

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 query for the official negative debt certificate (CND) from Recife's city government, using specific language like 'consulta em fonte oficial.' It is easily distinguishable from generic sibling tools such as authenticate or connect.

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 implies usage for CND queries and provides context about billing (pay-per-query) and LGPD, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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