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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral/compliance context: it is hosted by the platform, billed per query via prepaid credit, does not involve confidential data, and places LGPD controller responsibility on the client. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 dense but reasonably sized sentence that front-loads the purpose before adding commercial and legal context. It could be better structured, but it contains no filler and earns its length by covering several relevant operational aspects.

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 purpose, official source, payment, credentials, and data privacy, and the annotations cover safety. However, it lacks any guidance on which of the four optional identifiers to use and does not describe the expected result, leaving a meaningful gap for a tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation.

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 never mentions the parameters (cpf, cnpj, renavam, inscricao_imovel). It does not indicate which identifier(s) should be supplied or how they relate to the certificate query, so the agent receives no parameter guidance beyond the bare property 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 a specific action ('consulta') on a specific resource ('Certidão Negativa de Débitos' from SEFAZ DF). It distinguishes this tool from the generic sibling tools (authenticate, marketplace, report_bug, etc.) by naming the exact official source and certificate type.

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 clear operational context: no platform credentials are needed, prepaid credit is required per query, and the data is the same as what citizens can access. It does not name explicit alternatives, but no sibling tool is a plausible alternative, so the context is sufficient without exclusions.

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