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

While annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, the description adds meaningful details: the data is not confidential, the client is the data controller, and the query incurs a cost. This goes beyond the structured annotations and informs the agent of non-obvious behaviors.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by payment and legal context. It is not overly verbose for the amount of information conveyed, though it could be seen as slightly dense with disclaimers.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the source, payment, and governance nicely. However, it leaves ambiguity about parameter usage and whether at least one filter is required. The three optional parameters lack guidance, making the tool feel incomplete without external knowledge.

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% with three parameters (cnpj, razao_social, numero_processo) and the description does not explain their usage, whether any combination is required, or how they map to bankruptcy records. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 operation ('consulta') on the TST Bankruptcy Database ('Banco de Falências') from an official source. It uses a specific noun phrase and implies a read-only lookup, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, as the calibration example does.

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 context on appropriate usage: it queries official Brazilian sources, notes the pay-per-query model with prepaid credit, and outlines LGPD responsibilities. It does not mention explicit alternatives or exclusions but gives enough context for an agent to infer when to use it.

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