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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains the source (official Brazilian sources, same as available to citizens), emphasizes non-secret data, and clarifies LGPD compliance and client responsibility. No contradiction with annotations; the additional info enhances 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 short paragraph with three sentences. It is concise and avoids fluff, covering purpose, payment, and legal aspects efficiently. The structure lacks bullet points but is acceptable for a tool of moderate complexity.

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?

With 12 parameters, 5 required, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, the expected workflow for requesting a certificate, or how the payment/credit system affects usage. The description covers legal and sourcing aspects but omits critical operational details needed for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 12 parameters. Required fields like tipo_certidao, comarca, and finalidade are not defined. The description only mentions the overall purpose without detailing input semantics, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance to construct a valid request.

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 states it is for 'Cadastro de Pedido de Certidão, consulta em fonte oficial' but is ambiguous about whether it registers a request or queries existing information. The tool name suggests 'consultar' (query), but the description mixes registration and query. It does not clearly specify the verb and resource, though it mentions TJRJ and certificate, giving partial clarity.

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 some usage context (hosted by platform, no credentials needed, pay per query with prepaid credit) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools are unrelated generic platform tools, so no direct alternatives are mentioned. 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.