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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds meaningful operational behavior: payment is required per query, no credentials are needed, and the data is public access. It also clarifies the client's responsibility under LGPD, which is useful context that annotations 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 two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second adds operational and legal context. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, key inputs, access model, and legal responsibility. It indicates the result (título and local de votação) but does not explain the exact return structure or error cases, which are minor gaps for this type of query tool.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. It mentions name, CPF, title, and birth date, covering 4 of 6 parameters, but omits required parameter NomeMae and optional 'completo'. The schema itself provides no descriptions, leaving these parameters unexplained.

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 queries voter registration and voting location from TSE using name, CPF, title, and birth date. This is a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from the related sibling tools which are generic platform utilities.

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 context on when to use the tool: it is hosted on the platform, requires no credentials, and is paid via prepaid credit. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so the guidance is sufficient.

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