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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, so there is no contradiction. The description adds only the dataset scope but does not disclose behavior such as whether results require exact matches, what 'completo' changes, or the response shape—useful context that would go 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?

The description is a single front-loaded phrase with no filler, efficiently naming the resource and the core query parameter. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to the lack of parameter semantics.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is too sparse for confident invocation. It does not specify required inputs, the meaning of 'completo', expected results, or how this list differs from the BACEN 'inabilitados' tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that CPF and CNPJ are lookup keys, but it does not explain whether at least one is required, what format they should take, or what the 'completo' boolean does.

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 identifies the specific resource ('Banco Central — quadro geral de proibidos') and the lookup dimension ('por CPF/CNPJ'), making the tool's purpose clear. It also helps distinguish it from sibling tools like compliance_bacen_inabilitados, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'consult' or 'search'.

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 phrase 'quadro geral de proibidos' implies use when checking whether a CPF/CNPJ appears on the Central Bank's general prohibited list. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over related compliance siblings, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives.

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