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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries little burden for safety disclosure. It adds that the tool operates by CPF/CNPJ, which is a parameter-level fact rather than behavioral context. No additional behavioral details (e.g., response format, pagination, rate limits) are provided, which is acceptable given the annotations but does not exceed them.

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 that provides the core purpose without any fluff or repetition. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word adds value.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and minimal description, this is inadequate. It does not explain the return value, the meaning of 'completo', or any constraints (e.g., which parameter to provide). The lack of parameter details severely limits an agent's ability to use the tool 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description bears the full responsibility for explaining parameters. It only mentions 'por CPF/CNPJ', implying both are used, but does not clarify that they are optional, their format, or the meaning of the 'completo' boolean parameter. This leaves the agent guessing about required inputs and parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool returns CVM administrative sanctioning processes, and the mention of 'por CPF/CNPJ' specifies the scope. This distinguishes it from sibling compliance_cvm (the broader one) and other compliance tools, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 querying CVM sanctioning processes by CPF/CNPJ, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like compliance_cvm or provide exclusions. While the purpose is clear, there is no guidance on when to choose this over the general CVM tool or other compliance tools.

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