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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it is hosted on the platform, requires no credentials, is paid via prepaid credit, accesses only public official data, and notes LGPD compliance responsibility for the client. This is substantial additional transparency, though rate limits or pagination are not mentioned.

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 short paragraph, front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The subsequent sentences provide relevant operational and legal context without excessive wordiness. It is slightly dense but every sentence contributes value.

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 tool without an output schema, the description gives a good sense of the data scope and access model, but it omits return format details and fails to clarify the 'completo' parameter. It is adequate for orientation but leaves clear gaps for an agent preparing to invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It mentions CPF as the input ('a partir do CPF') but does not describe the expected format or the optional 'completo' boolean parameter at all. An agent cannot infer the meaning or effect of 'completo' from the description.

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 retrieves travel and expense data for federal executive branch public servants via CPF ('Viagens e despesas de um servidor do Poder Executivo Federal no Portal da Transparência a partir do CPF'). It names the specific resource, input, and scope, and is easily distinguished from generic sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and 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 gives useful usage context (hosted on the platform, no credentials, paid per query, public data) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The intended scenario is implied by the CPF-based query, but there are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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