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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes the tool is hosted without credentials, requires prepaid credits, queries official bureaus, and imposes legal obligations on the client. This complements the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations without contradiction.

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, reasonably sized paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and follows with necessary context. Each sentence contributes either purpose, data sources, payment, or legal compliance, with no wasted 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?

The description covers purpose, data sources, payment, and legal basis, but omits return value details and does not resolve parameter ambiguity. With no output schema, the absence of response format guidance is a notable gap, though annotations provide safety context.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description must clarify parameters. It implies CPF/CNPJ are identifiers for individuals and legal entities, but does not explain why both are required or how to choose between them. The optional 'completo' parameter is not described at all, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 retrieves existence and data of protests for individuals and legal entities across Brazil, providing a specific resource and scope. It effectively distinguishes itself from unrelated sibling utility tools.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool, including prerequisites like prepaid credit and legal basis under LGPD. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient given the sibling tools are unrelated.

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