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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds valuable behavioral details: prepaid payment per query, no platform credentials required, data sourced from official Brazilian entities, and LGPD compliance responsibilities. This significantly enhances the agent's understanding without contradicting annotations.

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, well-structured paragraph that opens with the core purpose, then adds payment, data source, and legal context. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or 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?

For a simple read-only query tool with two optional self-explanatory params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, payment model, data authenticity, and legal obligations. It lacks explicit return-value details, but given the tool's simplicity and abundant context, it is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explicitly explain the 'cpf' and 'raiz_cnpj' parameters. However, the parameter names are self-descriptive, and the tool's purpose implies they are identifiers for the active debt query. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, but the names provide enough hint.

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 active debt (Dívida Ativa) from SEFAZ PE in an official source. The verb 'consultar' and specific resource distinguish it from the generic sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 context: it's a paid, credential-free query tool for official Brazilian data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so the usage context is sufficient. No explicit exclusions needed.

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