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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: hosting, no credentials needed, payment model, and the public/non-confidential nature of the data. No contradictions.

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?

Four sentences with purpose front-loaded. The legal/disclaimer sentence adds necessary context without excessive verbosity. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers purpose, auth, cost, and data sensitivity, but lacks parameter-level detail (especially required fields) and return format. Since there is no output schema, the description should explain the certificate more fully. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions nome, CPF, título, and data de nascimento, but omits the required NomeMae and the optional 'completo' field. This is a significant gap that could cause an agent to miss required parameters.

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 ('Emite a certidão') and resource ('crimes eleitorais de uma pessoa no TSE'), distinguishing it from the unrelated sibling tools. No ambiguity about what the tool 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?

Provides clear context: public access data, no credentials, pay-per-query, and LGPD responsibility. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives, but siblings are platform utilities unrelated to data queries, so no exclusion is needed.

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