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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to repeat safety. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond the schema (e.g., no mention of match behavior, authentication, rate limits, or result format). The only added value is the parameter scope 'por nome', which is more about parameters than behavior.

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, with no filler or redundant content. It is appropriately front-loaded for a simple tool, but it is so minimal that it omits parameter details. It is not verbose, but its brevity borders on under-specification rather than good structure.

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 no output schema and annotations only provide safety, the description should explain the return value and parameter behavior. It does neither—only states the purpose and search field. The 'completo' parameter is undocumented, and there is no mention of how results are returned, match accuracy, or any limitations. This is incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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 must compensate. It clarifies that NOME is the name to search, but the boolean 'completo' is left entirely unexplained. Since there is no schema description and the tool description does not mention 'completo', the agent cannot infer what the flag controls. This is a significant gap.

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 the exact action ('Busca' – search) and the specific resource ('lista consolidada de sanções da ONU' – consolidated UN sanctions list) with the search field 'por nome'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like compliance_ue or compliance_uk by naming the specific sanctions list.

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 provides a clear context: this tool is for searching UN sanctions. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The 'por nome' clarifies the intended use case, but there is no direct statement like 'use this when you need UN sanctions' or 'do not use for EU sanctions'.

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