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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds valuable behavioral context: no authentication needed, payment-per-query with prepaid credits, data is public access from official sources, and LGPD compliance responsibilities for the client. This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and constraints.

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 four sentences long, each conveying essential information: the core function, platform/cost details, data classification, and legal responsibility. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no redundant or filler content.

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 covers the purpose, cost, access rights, and legal context, but it omits the return format (e.g., PDF, JSON) and fails to resolve the CPF/CNPJ required-parameter ambiguity. Given the lack of output schema and parameter descriptions, these are notable gaps for a tool with five parameters.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It mentions CPF/CNPJ, region, and certificate types, but it does not explain the values for 'Tipo', the format of CPF/CNPJ, or the 'completo' boolean. Notably, it says 'CPF ou CNPJ' suggesting either/or, while the schema requires both, leaving ambiguity.

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: issuing civil, electoral, or criminal certificates from the Regional Federal Court using CPF/CNPJ and region. The verb 'emite' is specific, the resource is precise, and it distinguishes itself from the generic sibling utilities.

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 on when to use the tool: to query public official records for certificates. It also explains practical requirements (paid via prepaid credits, no credentials) and clarifies that it is not for private/confidential data. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternative tools, though no direct alternatives are present among siblings.

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