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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses the payment model, lack of credential requirements, data controller responsibility under LGPD, and that the data is not confidential. This complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations without contradiction.

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?

Three sentences efficiently front-load the core purpose, then add practical details (payment, hosting, legal responsibility). Every sentence contributes unique information, 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?

While the description covers purpose, payment, and LGPD aspects, it critically omits parameter semantics, expected return values, and domain-specific meaning of terms like 'Nada Consta', 'instancia', and 'natureza'. With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the tool cannot be reliably invoked without additional external knowledge.

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 zero explanation of the 7 input parameters (cpf, nome, natureza, birthdate, nome_mae, etc.), and the input schema also lacks descriptions or enums (0% coverage). There is no guidance on value formats, meanings, or required combinations, leaving the agent without essential information to fill parameters correctly.

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 identifies the tool as a query for 'Nada Consta' from TJMA (Tribunal de Justiça do Maranhão) using official sources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace, which are platform-level operations, by specifying a specific court and query type.

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 practical usage context: prepaid credit is required, no platform credentials are needed, and it is intended for legitimate queries of official public data subject to LGPD. It does not explicitly compare to alternative query tools, but the sibling context makes the purpose unique, so the lack of exclusions is acceptable.

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