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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description does not contradict these and adds substantial context: the source is official and public (same as available to citizens), the data is not confidential, no platform credentials are needed, there's a pay-per-query pricing model, and the client bears LGPD controller duties. This meaningfully enriches the safety and cost profile.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose/source, platform/cost model, and legal/compliance framing. The text is front-loaded with the tool's function and contains no filler. It loses a point for being slightly dense in the final sentence, but remains appropriately sized for the information it conveys.

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?

With no output schema to clarify return values and no param descriptions in the schema, the description needed to explain what data is returned and how inputs map to a lookup; it does neither. It covers legal and pricing aspects well but omits functional details like response content and which optional-field combinations constitute a valid query, making it incomplete for a 6-parameter, paid, query-style tool.

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%, so the description had to compensate but provides zero parameter information. The parameter names (cpf, name, father, mother, birthdate, titulo_eleitoral) are self-explanatory Portuguese terms, which saves it from a 1, but no formats (e.g., date format, CPF masking/validation) or guidance on valid combinations is given. The unusual fact that only 'birthdate' is required is unexplained.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'consulta' of 'Título Eleitoral' via 'Tribunal TSE' with an official official source. It's clear this is a read/query operation on voter registration data. Loses a point because it doesn't add granularity on the exact distinction from any sibling (though siblings like 'authenticate' are dissimilar) or clarify exactly what data is returned.

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?

No explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives are mentioned. It gives operational context (no credentials needed, pay-per-query, prepaid credit) and a legal caveat (client is data controller under LGPD), but these are conditions of use rather than guidance on when to select this tool over others. The LGPD note implies a legitimate-purpose boundary, but this is not developed.

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