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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent. The description adds useful details: it is hosted by the platform, requires no credentials, is pay-per-query, and accesses public data with LGPD responsibilities. This goes beyond the annotation hints 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 a tight three-sentence paragraph, front-loaded with the core functionality. It includes payment model, data access type, and legal context without unnecessary fluff, though the LGPD sentence could be seen as slightly verbose.

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 tool has no output schema and the description does not explain what 'indicadores' means or what the response contains. It covers data type, access, and compliance, but misses parameter details and return value expectations, making it incomplete for a 3-parameter 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 schema has three parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions CPF and NIS as inputs in the first sentence, but does not clarify their format, purpose, or the meaning of the optional 'completo' parameter. This is a significant gap.

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 provides 'Indicadores de uma pessoa física no Portal da Transparência' using CPF and NIS, and later says 'Consulta informação' with a query verb. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace, which serve different purposes.

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 gives usage context: no credentials required, pay-per-query with prepaid credit, and that it accesses public data. It doesn't explicitly provide when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so the context is sufficient for selecting this tool.

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