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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: payment cost, no credential requirement, LGPD data-responsibility, and that the data is not secret. This does not contradict the readOnlyHint or idempotentHint 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?

The description is reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Later sentences about credentials, payment, and LGPD are useful and earn their place, though the phrasing is slightly repetitive.

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?

Since this is a two-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description should explain how to construct a request and what to expect, but it merely describes the abstract service. A user could not tell the agent the minimum valid input combination.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the CPF or CNPJ parameters. It does not clarify whether either is required, which one takes precedence, or whether passing both is acceptable, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 specifies a read operation ('consulta') on a defined resource — the 'Certidão Eletrônica de Ações Trabalhistas (CEAT)' from the official TRT21 court source. It stands out distinctly from sibling tools such as authenticate and 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 gives clear usage context: no platform credentials are needed, queries are paid with prepaid credit, and the data is the official source accessible to citizens. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but no sibling tool does the same thing, so this is adequate.

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