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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description goes beyond these by explaining that the tool is hosted on the platform, requires no platform credentials, is paid with prepaid credit, and that the client is the data controller per LGPD. It also clarifies that data is not confidential. This adds valuable behavioral context without contradicting 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 relatively concise for the information it conveys, leading with the main purpose and then adding payment and data responsibility details. It is structured logically and does not contain superfluous text, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 business context (payment, data control, official source) but omits crucial operational details: what the exact input parameters mean, what the output format is (no output schema), and any limitations or expected response structure. For a paid consultative tool with 6 parameters, this is incomplete.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 6 parameters (e.g., codigo_imovel, uf_sede, municipio_sede). It only mentions the overall purpose. This is a severe gap for a tool with multiple required inputs, as the agent cannot infer what values are appropriate.

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: 'Emissão do Certificado de Cadastro do Imóvel Rural (CCIR), consulta em fonte oficial' (Issuance/consultation of the CCIR certificate in official source). It uses a specific verb and resource, and is distinct from generic sibling tools like authenticate or connect.

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?

While no explicit alternative tools are mentioned, the description provides clear context: this is a paid consultation from an official source, without platform credentials. It implies when to use (when needing CCIR data) but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives. Since no sibling does a similar function, this context is sufficient.

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