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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: no credentials needed, prepaid per-query billing, public-access data (not private), and LGPD data-controller responsibility. It also states the return behavior (similarity score) with 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 three efficiently front-loaded sentences: core function first, then operational context, then legal framing. Every sentence adds information without redundancy, making it easy to scan.

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 tool has 10 parameters and no output schema or parameter descriptions; the description covers the main purpose and return type but omits key parameter semantics and optional flags. Annotations cover safety, but the description is not a complete guide for a complex consult tool.

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 names a few field categories (DNI, name, birth, address), but the schema has 10 parameters with no descriptions and 0% schema description coverage. It does not clarify the many required fields (e.g., City, State, PostCode, Phone) or the meaning of the 'completo' boolean, leaving the agent under-informed about parameter usage.

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 compares a person's provided data (DNI, name, birth, address) and returns a similarity degree against the registry. It uses a specific verb and resource, and is easily distinguished from sibling tools like authenticate, marketplace, or report_bug.

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 clear context for use: hosted on the platform, no credentials required, pay-per-query with prepaid credit, and access to public data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool competes with this functionality, so the context is sufficient for tool selection.

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