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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses that using the tool incurs a cost ('pague por consulta') and includes a data responsibility disclaimer regarding LGPD. These are behavioral aspects not covered by annotations, enhancing transparency.

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 single paragraph that conveys necessary details (purpose, cost, data source, legal responsibility) without excessive verbosity. It is well-structured and appropriately sized for the information provided.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, cost, and legal context. However, it omits any details about the parameter or what the certificate result looks like, leaving some operational aspects incomplete.

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 does not elaborate on the parameter 'numero_requerimento' (request number) at all. The schema provides no description for it, and the tool description adds no semantic meaning, leaving the parameter's purpose only inferable from its name.

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 purpose as 'Visualizar Certidão, consulta em fonte oficial' (View Certificate, consultation in official source). It specifies the court (TJRJ) and the action (viewing a certificate), making the intent unambiguous.

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 mentions usage context: 'sem credenciais da plataforma, pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago' (no platform credentials, pay per consultation with prepaid credits) and clarifies that it accesses public, non-confidential data (não é dado sigiloso). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or state when to use this over others, limiting guidance.

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