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

The annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the data source (CONOSCE open data) and specifies that it checks for a currently active sanction, including temporal, definitive, judicial disqualification, or fine, which gives meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the output (whether a sanction exists), the qualifying entity, the sanction types, and the data source. There is no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it states what is checked, for whom, against which source, and what sanction categories count. It does not specify the exact return shape (boolean versus detailed sanction record), which is a minor gap but not enough to block correct invocation.

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%; the schema already documents the single ruc parameter as an 11-digit RUC starting with 20. The description repeats that constraint ("empresa con RUC 20") but adds no extra syntax, format, or edge-case semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it tells whether a company with RUC 20 has an active sanction from the Tribunal de Contrataciones del Estado, including the sanction types. It is clear and narrow, but it does not distinguish this lookup from siblings such as ficha_empresa, which could plausibly surface related company status information.

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?

Usage is implied: query this when you want to know if a Peruvian company with a RUC starting with 20 is currently sanctioned, using CONOSCE open data. However, the description names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-not guidance, such as whether to use ficha_empresa first or what to do for RUCs not starting with 20.

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