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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses that the tool requires prepaid credits for each query, does not require platform credentials, and that it queries official non-confidential data while the client acts as data controller under LGPD. This adds meaningful behavioral context.

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 concise, consisting of a few clear sentences that cover the tool's purpose, hosting, payment, data source, and legal compliance. It is well-structured and avoids unnecessary elaboration.

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 explains the tool's function and legal context, but it does not mention the expected output format, potential errors, or any limitations (e.g., response structure, status codes). Given the lack of an output schema, this leaves the user without full context on what to expect from a successful or failed query.

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?

The input schema lists cpf, cnpj, and nome as parameters, but the description provides no additional explanation about their usage, optionality, or interdependencies. It does not clarify whether these are alternative identifiers or if they collectively filter results, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 that the tool is for consulting electronic labor action certificates (CEAT) from the TRT20 court, specifying it as a query against an official source. This distinguishes it from the generic sibling tools like authenticate or connect.

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 indicates the tool is a query operation and mentions it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, and uses prepaid credits. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, such as when a user needs labor court certificate data, nor does it provide guidance on prerequisites or limits.

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