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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that no platform credentials are required, that per-query prepaid credits are needed, and that data is non-confidential and the client is the data controller under LGPD. These are important behavioral aspects not covered by the readOnly/idempotent 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 fairly concise but has some redundancy (e.g., 'fonte oficial' appears twice) and could be streamlined. The main purpose is front-loaded, and it covers key operational details without excessive length.

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 lacks essential context: it does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., certificate details, success/failure), nor does it explain parameter dependencies (e.g., whether CPF or CNPJ is required). While it provides some constraints (payment, data control), it is incomplete for a query tool without an output schema.

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 three parameters (cpf, cnpj, nome) with no descriptions, and the tool description does not explain their meaning, usage, or which are required. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it fails to do so, leaving parameters ambiguous.

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 tool's purpose: consulting Electronic Labor Action Certificates (CEAT) from TRT4. It is specific about the resource (CEAT) and the court (TRT4), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.) which are not query 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?

The description provides clear context about the tool's use (official source, per-query payment) but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives. However, since the sibling tools are not similar in function, the lack of explicit exclusions is less critical. It could benefit from stating that it is the sole query tool for this data.

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