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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: no platform credentials needed, pay-per-query with prepaid credit, data is not confidential, and LGPD responsibilities. This goes beyond what annotations provide, offering valuable operational and legal 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, with three sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and includes necessary operational details (payment, credentials, LGPD) without unnecessary verbosity. Slightly more structure could improve readability, but it is efficiently written.

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 provides good context about the source, payment, and legal implications. However, it does not explain the parameters or what the output will be (no output schema exists). For a simple tool with two parameters, missing input guidance and return expectations leaves the definition incomplete.

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 has two parameters (cpf, cnpj) with no descriptions, and the description does not mention them at all. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate by explaining that either CPF or CNPJ is required, but it does not. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the lack of context on usage or mutual exclusivity is a significant gap.

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 performs a 'consulta' (consultation) of CEAT (Certidão Eletrônica de Ações Trabalhistas) from TRT5, in an official source. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it is easily distinguishable from sibling tools which are general platform utilities (authenticate, connect, etc.).

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 implies usage for CEAT queries but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusions. It gives context about the payment model (prepaid credit) and official source, which are prerequisites, but lacks explicit guidance on selection among tools.

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