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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: no platform credentials needed, pay-per-query with prepaid credit, data is the same as available to citizens and not confidential, plus LGPD controller responsibilities. This enriches the agent's understanding of cost and legal usage.

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 of three sentences, front-loading the primary purpose first. Each sentence adds distinct value (source, payment/auth, data nature, legal responsibility), though the LGPD clause is somewhat verbose for an AI agent. Overall, it is concise and well-ordered.

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 cost, authentication, and data classification, but it is incomplete for a query tool with 4 undocumented parameters and no output schema. It does not specify what inputs are expected (beyond the schema names), whether any combination is valid, or what the response contains. The agent cannot reliably invoke the tool without further information.

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 schema has 4 parameters (ie, cpf, pta, cnpj) with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not explain any of these parameters, their meaning, or how they relate to the 'protesto' query. The agent is left guessing what identifiers to provide, making this a critical gap.

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 as a query ('consulta') for 'Protesto Inscrito em Dívida Ativa' from SEFAZ MG, identifying a specific verb, resource, and official source. This distinguishes it from the general sibling tools (authenticate, marketplace, etc.).

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?

Usage context is implied: the tool is a paid per-query service using prepaid credits, hosted on the platform, and querying official non-confidential data. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus potential alternatives (e.g., other SEFAZ query tools), nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond payment.

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