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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context: hosted platform, no credentials, prepaid credit, public data source, and LGPD compliance. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the transactional and legal nature of the operation, though it does not describe the response format or error behavior.

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 two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently adds distinguishing context (payment, public access, legal responsibility). Every sentence contributes value, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the essential context: what the tool does, who it is for, the data type (public), the access model (no credentials, prepaid), and legal compliance (LGPD). It does not describe the output format or edge cases, but there is no output schema to rely on. For a focused consultation tool, the coverage is quite good, though a brief note on what 'completo' returns would make it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that CPF and CNPJ are used to identify the person or company, covering the two required parameters. However, the optional 'completo' parameter is not explained at all. Additionally, the description says 'a partir do CPF ou CNPJ' (either one), while the schema requires both Cpf and Cnpj, creating ambiguity. Partial compensation, but incomplete.

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: 'Emite a certidão negativa de licitante inidôneo no TCU para uma pessoa ou empresa a partir do CPF ou CNPJ.' This specifies the verb (emite/emits), the resource (certidão negativa), and the audience (person/company via CPF/CNPJ). It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools, which are all generic platform utilities (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.).

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 usage context: it explains the commercial model (pay-per-query with prepaid credit), that no credentials are needed, and that the queried data is public. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so no exclusions are necessary. The guidance is sufficient for a specialized consultation tool.

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