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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context about the paid nature, public data source, and LGPD responsibilities. It does not contradict annotations and increases transparency about the operation's non-mutating character.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then adds essential operational details (hosting, payment, legal framework). No redundant sentences, though the LGPD disclaimer could be seen as extra length.

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 query tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate context: purpose, required inputs, data source, access level, and legal responsibility. It lacks output format description and error handling, but these are less critical given the annotations and simple parameters.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the four required parameters (nome, CPF, data de nascimento, nome da mãe) but does not explain the optional 'completo' boolean or date formatting. This partial coverage leaves some 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 the tool's purpose: 'Emite a certidão negativa do Superior Tribunal Militar (STM)' with specific inputs (name, CPF, birth date, mother's name). It is highly specific and distinguishes from unrelated sibling 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: hosted by the platform, no credentials, prepaid credit, and public access data. This clarifies when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives. Siblings are unrelated, so no conflicting guidance needed.

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