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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about data not being confidential, being the same as citizen-available, and the client's LGPD responsibilities, which extends beyond the structured hints.

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 reasonably concise, starts with the main purpose, and includes relevant operational and legal details. It could be tightened, but every sentence adds 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?

The description covers purpose, data source, payment, and privacy, but omits parameter details and does not explain the return value or any conditions (e.g., required input). Given that there is no output schema, this is a notable gap for a complete picture.

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 cpf or cnpj parameters at all. The agent is left without guidance on which identifier is needed or how they relate to the certificate query, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 function: consulting a Negative Debt Certificate (Certidão Negativa de Débitos) from Prefeitura SP Campinas, with the verb 'consultar' in the name. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like authenticate or connect, which serve platform-level purposes.

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 useful context: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, and payment is made via prepaid credit per query. It does not mention explicit alternatives, but sibling tools are unrelated, so the context is sufficient.

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