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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: prepaid payment, official-source limitation, non-confidential status, and LGPD controller responsibility. It does not cover response format or failure modes, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 one dense, front-loaded sentence that packs purpose, payment model, data source, and legal context without filler. It earns a high score, though a slight redundancy exists between "fonte oficial" and "fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros," preventing a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description only implies the return is the CEAT certificate and does not explain what information the result contains. It is adequate for a simple read-only query but leaves gaps around parameter usage and expected response, so it is not fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain the relationship between cpf, cnpj, and nome, nor that none are required. Parameter names are self-explanatory, but the agent is left without guidance on valid combinations, cardinality, or minimum identifier requirements for a CEAT lookup.

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 identifies the tool as a CEAT (Certidão Eletrônica de Ações Trabalhistas) query for TRT10, using the resource-specific verb "consulta em fonte oficial." It is unambiguous and stands apart from the sibling tools by explicitly stating "sem credenciais da plataforma," distinguishing it from authentication/platform operations.

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 context: the tool is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, charges prepaid credits per query, and is limited to non-confidential official data. It gives legal usage context (LGPD) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, which would make it a 5.

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