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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses the prepaid per-query pricing, the lack of platform credentials, the official data source, and the LGPD controller responsibility. It does not mention failure modes or output shape, but annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 dense sentences front-load the purpose and then add payment, credential, and legal context without repetition or filler. Every sentence contributes new, useful 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?

For a simple read-only query with rich annotations, the description is mostly complete, covering purpose, cost, credentials, and legal responsibility. However, with no output schema and no parameter description, it falls short of explaining what the CEAT response contains or how the parameters should be combined (CPF vs CNPJ, required requester data).

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 adds no parameter-level guidance. The Portuguese field names (cpf, cnpj, cpf_requerente, nome_requerente) give some hints, but the distinction between the target subject and the 'requerente', and which fields are optional, is left to inference.

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 action ('consulta') and the specific resource ('Certidão Eletrônica de Ações Trabalhistas (CEAT)' from 'Tribunal TRT18' at an official source). This is specific enough to distinguish it from the unrelated sibling tools.

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 provides practical context: no platform credentials are needed, the call is paid with prepaid credit, and the data is official/non-confidential. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is clearly implied and the siblings are not competing tools.

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