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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is hosted by the platform, requires no platform credentials, costs per query, and respects LGPD with the client as data controller. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with purpose, then covers hosting, billing, and legal aspects without unnecessary fluff. It earns a strong score for density of information, though it could be slightly more scannable.

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?

For a read-only query tool with no output schema, the description provides decent context: purpose, cost model, and data privacy responsibilities. However, it omits details about return values, error scenarios, or any rate limits, and the lack of parameter semantics makes it incomplete for an agent to use effectively without additional assumptions.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not compensate by explaining any parameter usage. While parameter names are self-explanatory (cpf, name, birthdate), the description omits any guidance on required vs. optional fields, formats, or how parameters relate to the query. This is a significant gap given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 query for 'Certidão de Quitação Eleitoral' from Tribunal TSE, using specific verb+resource ('consulta em fonte oficial'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which are unrelated) by stating its exact function and official data source.

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 on when to use the tool: to consult official Brazilian public data for electoral clearance, highlighting that no platform credentials are needed and that it is a paid service with prepaid credits. Though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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