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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: it's hosted by the platform, requires prepaid credits (mentioned), data is public not confidential, and the client is responsible for lawful purpose under LGPD. This goes beyond annotations.

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 paragraph with front-loaded critical information: the tool name and purpose. It covers purpose, hosting, payment, data source, and LGPD compliance in three sentences. It's concise and each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured with bullets.

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 that there is no output schema, the description covers purpose, source, payment, data sensitivity, and legal responsibility. For a read-only query tool with two obvious parameters (cpf/cnpj), it is fairly complete. However, it lacks any indication of alternative tools for other states or general tax queries, but that's not required for this tool.

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%, meaning none of the parameters are explained in the schema. The description does not mention the parameters at all. Since there are two parameters (cpf and cnpj) and the tool is about certidão de débitos, an agent could infer that one must be provided, but the description doesn't compensate for the lack of schema documentation. It only says 'consulta informação...' but doesn't specify parameter semantics beyond obvious names.

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's purpose: querying SEFAZ AM's negative debt certificate from an official source. It includes the resource (certidão de débitos) and the action (consultar). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the sibling tools are general system tools (authenticate, connect, etc.), so no confusion arises.

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 explains when to use this tool: to consult official Brazilian government information, specifically tax debt certificates from SEFAZ AM. It also mentions it requires prepaid credits and does not use platform credentials. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear.

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