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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context about the data source, LGPD compliance, and the fact that data is not confidential, going 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 concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It packs useful information into three sentences, though the LGPD clause is somewhat dense and could be simplified.

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 consult tool, the description covers the main aspects (what, source, payment, data governance). However, it lacks details about the return format, possible error conditions, and parameter usage, which are not supplied by an output schema or parameter descriptions.

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 0% description coverage and the description does not explain the parameters (cpf, cnpj, nome). Although the names are self-evident, the description fails to add any nuance about querying by these fields, required combinations, or formatting.

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 performs a consulta (query) to Cadin from SEFAZ SP, using an official source. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.) by specifying its resource and action.

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 gives useful usage context (no platform credentials, prepaid credit per query), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The intended use case is implied rather than directly articulated.

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