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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral details: paid per query with prepaid credit, no platform credentials required, data is not classified, and LGPD responsibilities apply. There is no contradiction with 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by relevant background on hosting, credentials, payment, and data privacy. It is not overly long, though some compliance language could have been tightened without losing essential context.

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 explains the source, cost, and legal framing of the query, but it does not describe what the response contains, what the minimum query parameters are, how the four inputs relate, or what the expected output shape is. Given the lack of an output schema and zero parameter descriptions, this leaves critical gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool 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 four parameters with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not mention cpf, name, birthdate, or titulo_eleitoral at all. It also fails to explain which parameters are expected, in what combination, or what formats to use. The description does nothing to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 identifies the tool as a query for TSE electoral situation from official sources, making the resource and operation clear enough for an agent to select it. It does not explicitly describe the return value, but it goes beyond the title and is distinct from the unrelated sibling 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 useful context such as official source, prepaid credit cost, and citizen-available data, which implies this is the tool to use for electoral status queries. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives or what prerequisite identifiers are needed.

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