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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the specific data source (CGU penalties) and the query identifiers (CPF/CNPJ), but does not disclose any additional behavior such as format of results, pagination, or limitation of 'completo' parameter. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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, concise sentence in Portuguese that directly states the purpose. It is front-loaded with the main verb 'Consulta' and the resource 'penalidades CGU', with no wasted words. It perfectly fits a short-structure style.

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 tool has 4 parameters including a required TIPO that is not explained, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify how to invoke the tool correctly (e.g., what TIPO values are expected, whether CPF or CNPJ must be provided conditionally, what 'completo' does). For a compliance query tool, users need more guidance to use 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The description mentions CPF/CNPJ as identifiers, which helps, but it does not explain the semantics of 'TIPO' (required parameter) or 'completo' (boolean). The description is insufficient to understand how to fill the parameters correctly, especially since TIPO is required but its possible values are undocumented.

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 says "Consulta de penalidades CGU por CPF/CNPJ" (Query CGU penalties by CPF/CNPJ), which clearly indicates the tool performs a read-only query of penalties from the CGU (Comptroller General of the Union) based on a Brazilian individual (CPF) or company (CNPJ) identifier. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the specific CGU source and the query-by-document approach.

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 implies usage for checking penalties from CGU by document, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like compliance_ceis, compliance_cnep, or compliance_ceaf, which might also be penalty-related lists. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool naming is provided. Given the large sibling set, more guidance on selecting this specific tool would be helpful.

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