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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent hints, the description discloses additional behavioral aspects: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, involves paid queries, and clarifies data sensitivity (non-confidential) and LGPD compliance. This goes beyond the 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 moderately concise, containing multiple sentences with legal jargon. It is not overly verbose but could be streamlined. The structure is clear, starting with the purpose and then adding details, but it is not a model of conciseness.

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 gives useful context about the source and payment model, but lacks details on how to specify the query (parameter usage) and what the response looks like. Given the schema's simplicity, some gaps remain, but the description is not entirely inadequate.

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 description provides no explanation of the parameters (cpf, cnpj, nome, etc.) or how they are used. With zero schema coverage, the description completely fails to compensate, leaving parameter semantics entirely undefined.

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 that this tool performs a 'Nada Consta' query from the TJGO court, specifying it is an official source consultation. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose that distinguishes it from the sibling tools.

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 context about payment (prepaid credits) and the official nature of the data, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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