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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the 'por nome' search scope, but it does not disclose details about return behavior or how the optional 'completo' flag affects results.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant structured information. Every word adds relevant context about what the tool searches and how.

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?

This is an adequate baseline for a simple read-only name search, and the annotations cover side-effect safety. It is not fully complete because 'completo' is ambiguous, no output schema explains the result shape, and both parameters are optional but the behavior with empty inputs is not addressed.

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 explains that NOME is the search name, but it leaves the 'completo' boolean parameter completely unexplained, creating ambiguity about what a full/complete search means.

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 states a clear action: searching the FINCEN list by name. It names the specific target resource and the query field, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools such as compliance_ofac or compliance_onu.

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 the tool is for FINCEN list name lookups, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives among the many sibling compliance tools.

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