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

Despite having annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds significant behavioral context beyond them: it discloses the payment model (pay per query with prepaid credit), the absence of credential requirements, the public nature of the data, and the client's responsibility under LGPD. This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and obligations.

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 consists of three purposeful sentences, each adding value: the first states the action, the second describes hosting/payment, and the third clarifies data publicity and legal responsibility. There is no redundant fluff or repetition of schema fields, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 covers the core aspects: purpose, input types, payment model, and data source. It mentions 'emite a certidão' hinting at the return value. However, it does not detail the certificate response structure or error cases, nor explain the optional 'completo' parameter, leaving minor 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It lists the main fields (nome, CPF, título, data de nascimento, filiação), covering 6 of 7 parameters. However, it omits the 'completo' boolean parameter and does not provide format details (e.g., CPF formatting, date format), so the compensation is partial.

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 the tool emits a certificate of electoral clearance (certidão de quitação eleitoral) from TSE, listing the specific inputs (name, CPF, título, birth date, filiação). This is a specific verb+resource combination that unambiguously distinguishes it from the generic sibling tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.).

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 usage context: hosted by the platform, no credentials required, pay-per-query with prepaid credit, and queries only public-access data from official sources. It implicitly excludes private/sensitive data by stating the information is not private or confidential, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools because no similar siblings exist.

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