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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds value by clarifying no credentials are needed, payment is required, and that the data is public access, plus LGPD obligations. This enriches beyond the structured annotations without contradiction.

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?

Three sentences front-load the core action, then add payment model and legal context. Each sentence contributes distinct information, with no filler. Slightly longer than necessary but well organized.

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 read-only query tool with strong annotations, the description covers purpose, inputs, access type, and legal responsibilities. It doesn't specify response format or parameter formats, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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 lists the four required inputs matching the schema, but doesn't explain formats, the optional 'completo' parameter, or provide any details beyond the schema names. With 0% schema coverage, it partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 consults electoral status at TSE using specific inputs (name, birth date, CPF, voter ID). It names the resource and source, making it distinct from the unrelated sibling 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: hosted by the platform, no credentials required, pay-per-use with prepaid credit. It also notes the data is public access and LGPD compliance is the client's responsibility, giving conditions for appropriate use, though it doesn't mention explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use cases.

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