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 covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is a paid operation consuming prepaid credit, queries public/official sources, and clarifies the data is not private. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds cost and hosting details, and the third covers legal/compliance. Each sentence earns its place and is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 provides substantial context (public data, payment, LGPD, official sources) but lacks details on the return format (e.g., PDF, JSON) and does not explain the many required identity fields. For an 11-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, this is a notable 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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that CPF, CNPJ, and UF are key inputs ('a partir do CPF ou CNPJ e da UF'), but 10 of 11 parameters are required and undefined, including Nome, DataNascimento, NomeMae, NomePai, RG, Genero, and Tipo, plus the optional 'completo' boolean. Partial compensation only.

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 issues a civil, criminal, and fiscal certificate ('certidão cível, criminal e fiscal') for a person or company in a state Court of Justice, using CPF/CNPJ and UF. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from the generic 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?

The description provides clear context: it is hosted on the platform, requires no credentials, and is paid per query with prepaid credit. It also notes that the data is public access and subject to LGPD compliance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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