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 context beyond these: no platform credentials needed, cost implications (prepaid credits), and LGPD data-control responsibilities. It clarifies the data is not confidential, which is valuable behavioral information.

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 of four sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It includes payment and LGPD details that are relevant to usage, without excessive verbosity or redundancy.

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?

Despite good annotations, the tool has 4 parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema. The description fails to clarify parameter constraints, required values for 'tipo', or return format. The legal and commercial context is helpful but does not compensate for missing parameter and output information.

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?

Input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the meaning or format of 'cpf', 'cnpj', 'tipo', or 'birthdate'. The only hint is the certificate type (civil/criminal) implied by 'tipo', but this is not explicit and no parameter details are given.

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 performs a query for 'Certidão Negativa Cível e Criminal' from the TRF4 tribunal via official sources, using specific verbs like 'consulta' and 'fontes oficiais'. Sibling tools are unrelated platform utilities, so this is 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 provides useful context (paid per query, prepaid credits, no platform credentials) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, only implied usage for obtaining Brazilian official certificates.

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