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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it's hosted by the platform, requires no credentials, is pay-per-query with prepaid credit, accesses only public data, and places LGPD compliance on the client. 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 moderately concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes several additional pieces of information (payment, legal), but each contributes to context. It could be tightened, but it is not overly 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 is simple (2 params, no output schema), and annotations cover safety. The description covers purpose, payment, and data nature, but it does not explain parameter semantics or return behavior. This is an adequate but incomplete description that leaves gaps for the agent.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters. It mentions 'CPF' as the key input, but does not describe format, required vs optional nature, or the meaning of 'completo'. Since coverage is very low and the description fails to compensate, the semantics remain unclear.

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 purpose: retrieving data about Federal Executive Branch public servants from the Transparency Portal using a CPF. It uses a specific verb ('Consulta') and resource ('Dados de um servidor...'), and it is distinct from the generic sibling tools like connect or authenticate.

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 (querying public servant data by CPF) and provides context about payment and public access, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Since sibling tools are generic and non-overlapping, the lack of explicit alternatives is not a major issue, but there is no direct guidance.

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