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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, the description adds context about the data source being official and non-confidential, and clarifies payment via prepaid credits. It doesn't contradict annotations; it supplements them with data governance (LGPD) 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 concise, one sentence, but packs multiple pieces of information: what it does, source, payment model, data type, and legal responsibility. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose and adds context without verbosity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main context: official source, payment method, and legal compliance. However, it omits parameter semantics and does not mention expected output format (e.g., certificate status), which could be important for the agent.

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 coverage is 0% and parameters are not described in the description. The description does not explain that 'cpf' and 'cnpj' are mutually exclusive identifiers, nor their formats. The schema's basic string types provide minimal guidance, so the description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 consults a Negative Debt Certificate (Certidão Negativa de Débitos) from the Guarulhos city prefecture, using an official source. It specifies the resource (CND) and action (consult), and distinguishes itself from generic siblings by naming the specific municipality and certificate type.

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 obtaining official debt status information, but does not explain when to use this versus other tools. It mentions payment per query and no platform credentials, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives.

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