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 behavioral context beyond annotations: prepaid per-query billing, no platform credentials needed, data sourced from official Brazilian bodies, and LGPD-related controller responsibilities. This meaningfully supplements the annotation-only safety profile.

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 compact three-sentence block that front-loads the core purpose and then adds payment, credential, and legal context. Every sentence contributes useful information, though it could be slightly better structured with explicit parameter guidance.

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 five undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete for correct invocation. It covers payment, credentials, and data-source context, but leaves the agent without guidance on how to fill parameters such as tipo_certidao, cpf/cnpj, orgao, and considera_filiais.

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 provides no explanation of the five string parameters (cpf, cnpj, orgao, tipo_certidao, considera_filiais). It does not clarify valid values, required combinations, or how tipo_certidao relates to 'Cível e Criminal'. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 function: 'Certidão Negativa Cível e Criminal, consulta em fonte oficial' for 'Tribunal TRF6'. It uses a specific verb ('consulta') and resource, and is easily distinguished from the unrelated sibling tools like authenticate, marketplace, and report_bug.

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 clear usage context: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, and is paid per query with prepaid credit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so the context is sufficient for selecting this tool.

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