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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which cover safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: no platform credentials needed, pay-per-query with prepaid credit, data is non-confidential, and LGPD compliance responsibilities. This goes beyond the annotation baseline.

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 block of two to three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then covering operational details. It avoids irrelevant fluff and is structured logically. The legal note about LGPD is concise and relevant. Slightly dense, but acceptable.

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 tool has 5 parameters, requires 2, and has no output schema. The description fails to explain the meaning of parameters, expected input formats, or what the return value will look like. It covers payment and legal aspects but omits crucial operational details needed for correct invocation, especially given the lack of schema documentation.

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 semantics. It does not clarify what 'tipo', 'email', 'cpf', 'cnpj', or 'nome_social' mean, nor the valid values for 'tipo'. With no schema descriptions and no explanation in the text, the agent has no guidance on how to correctly populate these parameters.

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 what the tool does: 'Certidão Unificada da Justiça Federal, consulta em fonte oficial' – it retrieves a unified federal court certificate from an official source. The verb 'consulta' indicates a read operation, and the resource is specific, distinguishing it from unrelated sibling tools like 'authenticate' or 'marketplace'.

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 implies when to use the tool (when needing the unified certificate) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. It mentions the data is public ('não é dado sigiloso') and that payment via prepaid credit is required, but no explicit 'use this when...' or 'instead of X' guidance. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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