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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the cost ($0.01) and the shape of what comes back (in force vs expired, authority, category, dates), but says nothing about failure modes such as an invalid or unknown CNPJ, and no explicit read-only confirmation beyond the word 'screening'.

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?

Two sentences that are front-loaded with the scope, followed by return content and price. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 tool with no output schema, the description does meaningful work by enumerating the returned fields (authority, category, dates) and distinguishing in-force from expired sanctions. It stops short of describing empty-result or error behavior, which is the only real gap.

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?

The single cnpj parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including the numeric-or-alphanumeric IN RFB 2.229/2024 detail. The description only restates 'by CNPJ' and adds no format or interpretation guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies at 100% coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (sanctions screening) and resource (CEIS and CNEP lists from the CGU) scoped to Brazilian CNPJ, which clearly separates it from generic siblings like get_company, get_company_dossier and get_company_score. The named data sources make the scope unambiguous without opening any schema.

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?

A compliance use case is implied by 'sanctions screening' and the named lists, but the description never says when to choose this over get_company_dossier or get_company_score, nor what prerequisites apply. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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