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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds minimal context by indicating the registry covers punished companies and is searchable by CNPJ/CPF, but it does not disclose result shape, pagination, or whether CPF and CNPJ are mutually exclusive or combinable.

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 extremely concise with no filler or repetition; the key terms CNEP, empresas punidas, and CNPJ/CPF are front-loaded. However, the brevity sacrifices essential operational detail, making it more under-specified than genuinely well-structured.

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 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and 30+ similar compliance siblings, the description is too sparse for an autonomous agent to reliably select and invoke the tool. It omits how parameters combine, what 'completo' changes, and any behavioral distinctions from analogous registries.

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 carry parameter meaning. It only clarifies that CNPJ and CPF are accepted query identifiers; the 'completo' boolean parameter is left entirely undefined, and no formats, combinations, or optionality semantics are provided.

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 registry (CNEP), the subject matter (empresas punidas/punished companies), and the query keys (CNPJ/CPF). While it lacks an explicit verb such as 'consulta', the intent as a lookup tool is clear and distinct from the many other compliance_* sibling registries.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to choose CNEP over sibling tools like compliance_ceis, compliance_cgu, or compliance_leniencia. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-comparison cues to help an agent decide among the large set of compliance registries.

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