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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: prepaid payment is required, the data comes from official non-confidential sources, and the client is the LGPD controller. This meaningfully supplements the annotation-only safety profile.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then adds important operational and legal context. It is somewhat dense but every clause contributes useful information, and there is no fluff.

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, source, cost, and privacy responsibilities, but it omits essential call-level context: how to choose among ie/cpf/cnpj, whether at least one is required, and what the response represents. With no output schema and minimal parameter documentation, this incompleteness hurts usability.

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 input schema has three undocumented parameters (ie, cpf, cnpj) and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain these parameters, their relationships, which one to use, or that one is likely required. This is a critical gap because the description adds no semantic value for the parameters.

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 function: consulting a 'Certidão Negativa de Débitos' from SEFAZ MA via official sources. It uses a specific verb ('consultar'), names the resource, and distinguishes itself from the unrelated platform-level sibling 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 provides clear usage context: it is for querying official Brazilian tax debt certificates, requires no platform credentials, and is paid per query with prepaid credit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient given the unrelated sibling tools.

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