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

The description discloses important behavioral aspects: it is a paid query, requires no platform credentials, returns non-confidential data, and includes LGPD compliance notes. This goes beyond the annotations, though it omits potential errors or rate limits.

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 moderately concise but includes redundant statements (e.g., repetition of official source, platform hosting) and could be streamlined. It is not overly verbose but not maximally efficient.

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 there is no output schema and two underdocumented parameters, the description fails to explain the return value or the relationship between CPF and CNPJ (e.g., required vs. optional). It leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'cpf' and 'cnpj' parameters at all, leaving the agent to infer their meaning. No compensation is provided for the lack of schema descriptions.

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: querying the CEAT (Certidão Eletrônica de Ações Trabalhistas) from TRT11, an official source. It distinguishes itself from generic sibling tools and explains its paid nature.

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 some context (official source, no credentials, prepaid credit) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions, limiting guidance.

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