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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent. Beyond that, the description adds that no platform credentials are needed, queries are billed via prepaid credit, data is not confidential, and the client is the data controller under LGPD. These are useful behavioral details not present in annotations, though some regulatory text is verbose.

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 compact (3 sentences) but packs in legal and billing disclaimers that could be moved elsewhere. It lacks a clear front-loaded summary of functionality, instead mixing purpose with compliance notes. It is not wasteful, but could be better organized.

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?

Given 3 optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description leaves out crucial usage details like mutability of parameters and what the response contains. It does not clarify how parameters combine or whether at least one is needed. The lack of output schema documentation further reduces completeness.

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%; the description does not mention cpf, cnpj, or nome at all. It doesn't explain parameter formats, optionality, or that at least one may be required. Since the description carries full burden and provides zero information about parameters, this is a critical 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 identifies the tool as a consultation for TRT6 CEAT (labor lawsuit certificate) from an official source. While it doesn't explicitly list parameters, 'consulta' and 'informação' make the purpose clear. It differentiates from siblings (which are generic platform tools) by naming the specific court and certificate type.

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 mentions cost (pay-per-query), hosting, and LGPD responsibilities but does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide conditions or exclusions. It implies usage for querying official Brazilian data but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool or what prerequisites exist (e.g., at least one parameter).

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