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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive traits, lowering the bar. The description adds the 15-minute cache behavior and the endpoint, which are useful beyond annotations. It does not contradict annotations, and the return content is hinted at with 'detalhes completos'.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose, then the endpoint and return details, then usage instructions. It's not overly long, and every sentence adds information. Could be slightly tighter but remains efficient.

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?

Given the low parameter count, high schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary usage aspects: identifiers, examples, and cache. It doesn't address not-found behavior, but that's likely covered by the output schema. Complete enough for an agent to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by providing concrete examples for each identifier format and the HTTP 500 note, which goes beyond the schema's descriptive text.

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 it consults a 14.133 contract by identifier, lists the returned details (objeto, valor, modalidade, etc.), and names the endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listar (list) and resultados (results) by focusing on single-record retrieval by ID.

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?

Explicitly explains the two accepted identifier formats and how to pass them via tipo_identificador, with concrete examples. It also notes the upstream rejects other values with HTTP 500, which is a practical caveat. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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