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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable context about prepaid credit requirements, the public nature of the data, and LGPD compliance obligations. This provides behavioral insight beyond the safety hints.

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 and covers multiple relevant aspects (purpose, payment, official source, LGPD) in a short paragraph. It could be slightly more structured but every sentence adds value.

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 description gives context on the official source and payment model, but lacks critical details about inputs and outputs. With no output schema and minimal parameter documentation, an agent may struggle to invoke the tool correctly despite understanding its purpose.

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 parameter meanings or formats. It only alludes to the certificate type in natural language but fails to document 'cpf', 'cnpj', 'birthdate', or valid values for 'tipo_certidao', leaving the agent without necessary input details.

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 a specific verb ('consulta') and resource ('Certidão Negativa Cível e Criminal' from Tribunal TRF2). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'marketplace' by focusing on a specific court document query.

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 explains the payment model ('pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago') and the lack of platform credentials, which helps an agent understand prerequisites and constraints. It implies when to use the tool (for official Brazilian court certificates), though it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions.

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