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

The description adds significant context beyond the annotations: it reveals the tool is hosted by the platform, requires no credentials, is pay-per-query with prepaid credit, and accesses public (non-private) data. It also explains the client's LGPD responsibilities. These details are not present in the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint 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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by necessary operational and compliance information. The LGPD legal note adds a bit of length but is relevant for handling personal data, so it earns its place.

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 important operational context (auth, payment, data privacy) but omits details on the return format or how to select between CPF and CNPJ. Given the lack of an output schema, this missing information makes the description somewhat incomplete for an agent to fully predict the tool's behavior.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains the main parameters (CPF ou CNPJ, IE, UF), but it says 'CPF ou CNPJ' while the schema requires both Cpf and Cnpj, creating ambiguity. The optional 'completo' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving a 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 function: querying the Sintegra state taxpayer registration for a person or company using CPF/CNPJ, state registration, and UF. It uses a specific verb ('Consulta') and identifies the resource and input parameters, distinguishing it from the unrelated sibling platform tools.

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 on usage: it is hosted on the platform, requires no credentials, charges per query via prepaid credit, and accesses public data with LGPD compliance. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so no exclusion is needed.

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