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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses important behavior: hosted by the platform, no platform credentials, pay-per-query with prepaid credit, and consultation of non-confidential official data. It also provides LGPD data-controller responsibilities, adding substantial context beyond what annotations convey.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential operational and legal context. Every sentence contributes meaningful information: purpose, payment/credentials, data source, confidentiality, and LGPD responsibility. No wasted words.

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 description covers purpose, payment, and legal context well, and annotations cover safety semantics. However, with no output schema and no explanation of response format, error behavior, or how the three optional parameters should be supplied, an agent still faces ambiguity when actually invoking the tool.

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%, but the description does not explain how to use cpf, cnpj, or nome, nor whether at least one is required or in what combinations. The field names are self-explanatory, but the complete absence of guidance on required identifiers or selection criteria is a notable gap.

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?

Description uses a specific verb (consultar) and clearly names the resource: Certidão Eletrônica de Ações Trabalhistas (CEAT) at Tribunal TRT12. It clearly distinguishes this from the generic sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace by identifying the exact official consultation purpose.

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 clearly indicates when this tool is appropriate: for official CEAT queries from Brazilian official sources. It adds practical context such as prepaid credit and no platform credentials, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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