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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable information beyond annotations: it requires prepaid payment, does not use platform credentials, and clarifies data privacy (non-confidential, LGPD responsibilities). No contradictions with annotations; instead, it enriches the behavioral context.

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, compact paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then provides essential operational details (payment, credentials, legal). It is not overly verbose, though some sentences on LGPD could be trimmed for focus. Overall, it is efficient and structured logically.

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?

With no output schema and low parameter guidance, the description should explain expected return values and usage constraints. It does not mention what the output looks like or clarify parameter requirements (e.g., one of cpf/cnpj is needed). This leaves critical gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool, making it incomplete for a simple but under-specified API.

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 defines two string parameters (cpf and cnpj) with no description and 0% schema coverage. The description fails to explain these parameters, their format, which one to use, or whether at least one is mandatory. Since coverage is zero, the description must compensate but does not, leaving the agent uncertain about how to populate the parameters.

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 explicitly states the tool is for consulting Certidão Negativa de Débitos (CND) from Prefeitura SE Laranjeiras, using an official source. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) which are generic and unrelated, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains when to use it (for official Brazilian source queries, same data as citizen access) and includes practical usage details like requiring prepaid credit and no platform credentials. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, though the sibling list does not contain any similar query tools, so the guidance is sufficient.

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