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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context about payment model, credential requirements, the public nature of the data, and the client's data controller role under LGPD. No contradictions with 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 dense, purposeful sentences with no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by operational and legal context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 source, access, payment, and legal compliance well. However, with no output schema and no parameter guidance, it leaves important usage gaps such as how to structure the query (CPF vs CNPJ) and what type of result to expect. This is a moderate gap for a consultation 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%, and the description does not mention cpf/cnpj at all. It fails to explain that queries are by CPF or CNPJ, whether both can be used, or which one is appropriate for CEAT queries. Users are left to infer from parameter names alone.

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 it queries the official CEAT certificate from TRT1, naming both the tribunal and the specific resource type. This distinguishes it from generic sibling tools and leaves no doubt about its function.

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 gives clear operational context: official source, platform-hosted, prepaid credits, no platform credentials, and LGPD responsibilities. It does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or state when to prefer this one, but the context is sufficient for most cases.

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