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

Annotations indicate a safe read-only operation. The description adds value by disclosing the payment model (prepaid credit), that no platform credentials are needed, and that the data is not confidential and the client is the LGPD data controller. It does not mention rate limits or response format, but given annotations cover safety, this is adequate.

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 concise, around 40 words, front-loading the core purpose first. Each subsequent sentence adds a distinct detail (payment, official source, LGPD responsibility), so no wasted words.

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 tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, so the description should explain input requirements and return value. It only states the general purpose and legal notes, leaving users unclear about which identifiers are needed (e.g., CPF vs RG) and what the result contains. This is a significant gap for a consultation 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?

The schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no information about what each parameter means or how to fill them. Parameter names are self-explanatory in Portuguese, but the description adds no value beyond the schema. For example, it does not clarify optional fields like rg/cpf or the relationship between them.

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: 'Certidão Criminal, consulta em fonte oficial' – querying a criminal certificate from the TJPA court. This is a specific verb (consultar) and resource (certidão criminal), and it distinguishes from generic platform siblings like authenticate or connect.

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?

It provides clear context: the tool queries official Brazilian sources and is available to citizens. It mentions payment via prepaid credit and no platform credentials, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. Since there are no similar sibling tools, the context is sufficient.

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