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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and the description adds valuable context beyond these: no platform credentials required, prepaid payment per query, data is not confidential, and LGPD responsibilities. This provides practical behavioral details (auth and cost model) that annotations do not cover, though it omits details like retry limits or response format.

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 at four sentences and front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, it includes legal disclaimers (LGPD) that, while important, could be streamlined. Overall, it's adequately sized but could be tighter by moving legal/payment details to a separate field or appendix.

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 lack of an output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to specify which combination of parameters is expected, how the response will be structured, or any constraints (e.g., format requirements). Legal and payment details are present but operational usage information is missing, making it hard for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 entirely ignores the three parameters (placa, chassi, renavam). With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it offers no explanation of what these fields mean or how they relate to the query. The agent has no guidance on which parameters are required, optional, or how they interact, making effective invocation highly uncertain.

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: consulting IPVA information from SEFAZ CE via official sources. It explicitly uses a specific verb (consultar) and resource (IPVA in SEFAZ CE), and distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which serve entirely different functions.

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 provides context about payment and hosting but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool might be preferable. Only implies usage when IPVA data is needed, which is insufficient for an agent to decide among potentially similar consultation tools.

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