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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing the prepaid-credit requirement, lack of platform credentials, official-source nature, and LGPD data-controller responsibility, without contradicting annotations.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: purpose, payment/credentials, and data-governance context. No filler; each sentence adds distinct information.

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, source, payment, and legal context, and annotations cover safety. However, with no output schema and no parameter guidance, an agent cannot tell whether CPF, CNPJ, or name is sufficient or how results are returned.

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 has 3 parameters (cpf, cnpj, nome_completo) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description never mentions them or their required combinations. It fails to compensate for the schema 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?

The description opens with 'Tribunal TRT17: Certidão Eletrônica de Ações Trabalhistas (CEAT), consulta em fonte oficial,' naming the specific court, document type, and action. This clearly distinguishes it from generic 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?

It explains the payment model ('pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago') and that no platform credentials are needed, giving clear operational context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it stops 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.