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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds extra value by disclosing hosting details, payment requirements (prepaid credit), and data sensitivity (not confidential) plus LGPD compliance. No contradiction with 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 a concise paragraph in Portuguese, front-loaded with purpose and then adds constraints. It is efficient with words, though the sentences could be slightly more compact. It avoids unnecessary 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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should provide parameter details and some indication of the result format. It only describes the domain (official source, LGPD) and payment, but lacks essential parameter semantics and output behavior, leaving the agent underequipped 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 five parameters (cpf, cnpj, tipo, orgao, considera_filiais). It only vaguely references 'Certidão Negativa Cível e Criminal' which might relate to 'tipo' but offers no concrete meaning for any parameter.

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 a specific verb (consulta) and resource (Certidão Negativa Cível e Criminal do Tribunal TRF1) from an official source. It uniquely identifies what the tool does and is not confused with the generic sibling tools 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?

Provides context about when to use it: for official Brazilian sources, requires prepaid credit, not confidential data, and the client's LGPD responsibilities. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives but implies its usage for certificate queries, which is sufficient given that siblings are unrelated.

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