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

The description is transparent about payment requirements, lack of platform credentials, official data origin, and LGPD compliance. It aligns with readOnly and idempotent annotations, though it does not mention potential errors or rate limits.

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 run-on sentence with redundant phrasing, such as repeating 'consulta em fonte oficial' and later 'consulta informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros'. While not excessively long, it could be more streamlined.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not specify what information the query returns, error handling, or usage examples. It lacks details on how the prepaid credit model works or what happens with missing or invalid parameters.

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 schema lists 10 parameters with no descriptions, and the description contradicts the presence of credential-like fields (email, senha, pkcs12_cert, pkcs12_pass) by stating 'sem credenciais da plataforma'. Required parameters like matricula, uf, municipio, cartorio are not explained, leaving ambiguity about their format or purpose.

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 indicates a query operation for viewing a property registration (matrícula) from ARISP, with mentions of official sources and prepaid credits. It is distinct from sibling tools like authentication or marketplace, though the verb 'consultar' is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

It implies a pay-per-query model and official data source, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No clear conditions or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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