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

The description adds an important behavioral detail not captured by annotations: that this is a paid query ('Consulta paga (debita a carteira)'). The annotations already note read-only and idempotent, but the cost implication is a significant side effect that the description discloses, enhancing transparency.

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 relatively concise, composed of two sentences, and includes a clear enumeration of output fields. It is well-structured and does not waste words, though it could be streamlined by removing redundant phrasing like 'por padrão'.

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 the purpose, the return data fields, and a specific use case, which is quite complete for a simple query tool. It does not mention potential errors or response formats, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, it adequately informs the user about what to expect.

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 description does not explain the parameters (uf, municipio, tipo). It lists output fields but gives no guidance on what values are expected for the inputs. Since the schema provides only names and types, the description fails to add meaning to the parameters, leaving them unclear.

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 that the tool lists Inmetro speed-measuring instruments for a municipality and provides their metrological status, with a specific list of attributes. This is a precise action (list) and resource (speed cameras in a municipality), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from the unrelated sibling 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 a concrete use case: checking whether a radar that issued a fine was approved and within validity at the date of the infraction. This effectively tells when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but given the context that is sufficient.

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