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

The description adds significant behavioral traits beyond annotations: requiring prepaid credit, not needing platform credentials, data being public/non-confidential, and LGPD responsibilities. This provides valuable context about costs, authentication, and legal handling that annotations alone do not convey.

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 three sentences and about 50 words, efficiently covering purpose, access, cost, and legal context. There is slight redundancy between 'fonte oficial' and 'fontes e órgãos oficiais', but overall it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the simple query tool, the description provides rich context but lacks parameter semantics and does not specify output or further usage caveats. It compensates for the absence of an output schema with cost and confidentiality details, but the parameter gap keeps it from being fully 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%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'uf' and 'municipio'. While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description fails to add any explicit meaning or relationship to the query, leaving the agent to infer the required inputs.

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 this is a query tool for CAPAG (Payment Capacity) from the official National Treasury source. The verb 'consulta' and resource 'Tesouro Nacional: Capacidade de Pagamento (CAPAG)' specify exactly what the tool does, and it is distinct from the generic 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 implies usage context (querying official Brazilian data) and mentions access conditions (no platform credentials, prepaid credit), but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives. There is no exclusionary guidance, but the intended use case is clear enough from the context.

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