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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so no contradiction exists. The description adds the 'search by name' behavior but does not disclose matching semantics, output format, limits, or the meaning of the 'completo' option.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, making it appropriately concise for the tool's simple search behavior.

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 good annotations and a simple search purpose, the description covers the core intent, but it omits important context such as the 'completo' parameter semantics and any result expectations. It is adequate for basic invocation by name but not fully complete.

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. 'por nome' maps to the NOME parameter, but the 'completo' boolean parameter is completely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess its purpose.

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's action ('Busca'), the resource ('lista de sanções financeiras da União Europeia'), and the search method ('por nome'). It also distinguishes itself from the many sibling compliance tools by explicitly naming the EU financial 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 scope is implied through 'União Europeia', which tells the agent this is for EU sanctions screening. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative compliance tool should be preferred for other jurisdictions.

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