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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely valuable traits: pay-per-query cost implications, no-auth-required hosting, official-source-only data provenance, and LGPD data-controller responsibilities.

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?

A dense but efficient single paragraph where every clause carries meaning—purpose, hosting, auth, pricing, data source, and legal context all in four sentences. Slight deduction for being an unstructured wall of text with no bullets or parameter callouts.

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?

Strong on business and compliance context (prepaid credit, no credentials, official sources, LGPD ownership) and no output schema exists to document. However, for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the absence of parameter semantics leaves a real usage gap.

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% (no parameter descriptions, no enums), and the description provides zero information about cpf/cnpj format (mask, digits) or valid values for tipo_certidao. With low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate but doesn't.

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 identifies the tool as a query for 'Certidão de Apenados' via 'consulta em fonte oficial,' giving a specific verb+resource. It's readily distinguishable from infrastructure siblings like authenticate or report_bug, though the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Useful contextual guidance is present: 'sem credenciais da plataforma,' 'pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago,' and data-source scope (official Brazilian sources, not confidential). However, there's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against alternatives, and no exclusions.

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