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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context: payment model, public data nature, and LGPD compliance, which goes beyond the structured annotations. No contradictions.

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 compact and front-loaded with purpose, followed by practical usage details. No redundant sentences; every part adds value.

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 purpose, data sourcing, and legal responsibility, but with no output schema and low parameter coverage, it misses details like the meaning of 'completo', mutual exclusivity of CPF/CNPJ, and expected response structure. These gaps are notable for a query 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 the main parameters (CPF/CNPJ, inscrição estadual, UF), but schema coverage is 0% and the optional 'completo' parameter is not explained. It also does not clarify whether CPF and CNPJ are mutually exclusive despite schema listing both as required, creating potential ambiguity.

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 it queries the CCC (Cadastro Centralizado de Contribuinte) from Sintegra using CPF/CNPJ, inscrição estadual, and UF. It uses a specific verb (Consulta) and resource, distinguishing it from sibling platform tools like authenticate or marketplace.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use: for querying public taxpayer data with prepaid credit and no credentials. It does not explicitly describe exclusions or alternatives, but the intended use case is evident and not misleading.

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