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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: no platform credentials needed, prepaid credit required, data is not confidential, and LGPD compliance responsibilities, which go beyond 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 a dense run-on sentence covering purpose, payment, official source, and LGPD, with some redundancy (e.g., 'fonte oficial' repeated). It is informative but could be better structured and more concise.

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?

While the description provides payment and legal context, it lacks essential information about input requirements (which parameters to use, if any are mandatory) and the nature of the returned data. Given no output schema, this leaves the tool under-specified for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 three optional string parameters (cpf, cnpj, nome) with no descriptions, and the description does not mention them at all. It fails to explain that at least one identifier is needed, the format, or precedence if multiple are provided.

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 queries the CEAT (Certidão Eletrônica de Ações Trabalhistas) from TRT7, an official source. It distinguishes from generic sibling tools like authenticate or connect by specifying the exact court and document 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 payment via prepaid credit and no platform credentials, providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or exclude cases, leaving the usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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