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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond these: it explains the cost model (prepaid per-query) and clarifies that the data is public, not private or confidential, with LGPD compliance responsibilities. This is valuable context not covered by annotations.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by four sentences of relevant contextual information (hosting, cost, data accessibility, LGPD). While the legal sentence could be condensed, every sentence serves a purpose and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple query tool with strong annotations, the description covers the core intent, data accessibility, and compliance context. It omits the return format and details of the optional parameter, but given the simplicity and the explicit purpose, it is reasonably 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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions CPF and month/year as input criteria, adding some semantic meaning for two required parameters. However, it does not explain the format of CPF/MesAno nor the optional 'completo' boolean, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 function: querying remuneration of a federal executive branch public servant using CPF and month/year. This specific verb-resource combination ('Remuneração de um servidor... no Portal da Transparência') distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling tools (authenticate, marketplace, etc.).

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 useful context: the tool is hosted by the platform, requires no credentials, and is paid per query with prepaid credit. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tools are functionally unrelated, so the context is sufficient to guide appropriate use.

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