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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about payment requirements and data controller responsibilities, which is useful but does not detail response behavior or error conditions.

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 key information front-loaded (purpose, official source, payment model). It is concise but could be better structured with bullet points or clearer separation of usage vs. legal notes.

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 has no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should compensate more. It covers purpose, payment, and legal context, but lacks details on input requirements, response format, or typical use cases, making it incomplete for a complex query 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%, and the description does not explain the parameters (ie, cpf, cnpj) beyond their names. The description mentions the certificate type but not which identifier is required or how they relate, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone.

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 queries SEFAZ BA for Certidão Negativa de Débitos from an official source. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the Brazilian tax authority and certificate type, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other query 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 explains the payment model (prepaid credits) and data privacy context (LGPD), but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It implies usage for official debt certificate queries but lacks explicit guidance.

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