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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, is not confidential data, and includes LGPD compliance statements. This goes beyond the annotations, providing a clearer picture of the tool's operation. No contradiction with 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 paragraph that covers the essential points: the service, payment, data nature, and legal responsibilities. While it includes legal disclaimers, they are relevant and not overly verbose. It is concise enough without being terse.

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 explains the service's purpose and operational constraints (payment, data protection), but it omits critical information about the expected input (which parameter to provide) and the output (what the certificate contains). Given that the schema provides no descriptions, this lack of context makes the tool difficult to use 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 does not mention the parameters 'cpf' and 'cnpj' at all. Since the schema has no property descriptions, the description is the only source of parameter semantics, and it fails to explain what these fields are for or their requirements. This is 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: to request a Negative Debt Certificate (Certidão Negativa de Débitos) from SEFAZ PI, querying an official source. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace by specifying a unique government service.

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 indicates when to use this tool: for querying official Brazilian sources, with a note about prepaid credits and lack of platform credentials. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but given the distinct nature of the service, the context is sufficient. A more explicit note about prerequisites (e.g., having credits) would improve it slightly.

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