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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: payment required (prepaid credit), no platform credentials needed, data is non-confidential (same as citizen-accessible), and LGPD compliance responsibilities. This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent about cost and data sensitivity.

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 a single dense sentence with multiple clauses covering payment, credentials, data source, and legal compliance. It's not overly long but not well structured. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Processo, consulta') but then dives into legal and commercial disclaimers, which could be separated. It earns a mid score because it's efficient but a bit jumbled.

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?

There is no output schemacustom, and the description does not mention what the response contains (e.g., process details, status, dates). With 5 parameters and zero schema coverage, the description should compensate by explaining expected inputs and outputs, but it only gives high-level context about data source and legal responsibility. Missing parameter explanations and pagination/result format info make it incomplete.

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?

There are 5 parameters and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain any parameter semantics (e.g., what 'cpf', 'cnpj', 'data_fim' mean, or how they relate to the query). Since the schema has no descriptionscommunication, the description completely fails to compensate. The only hint is the word 'processo' but it doesn't clarify the combination logic.

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 performs a query ('consulta') for CARF process information from official sources. It identifies the resource (CARF processes) and the action (consult), though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from direct siblings since the sibling list is generic tools like authenticate and connect, so this is acceptable.

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 gives context on how to use it: hosted by the platform, no credentials needed, pay per query, and that it consults official sources. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. It implies usage for looking up CARF process info but lacks clear exclusion guidance.

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