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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, covering the core transparency needs. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as pagination or result limits, but does not contradict annotations.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and directly addresses the tool's function. It contains no fluff 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 simple read-only search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description and annotations together provide adequate context. It lacks minor details like case sensitivity or output structure, but these are not essential for an agent to invoke 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 sole parameter 'query' has zero schema description coverage. The description compensates by indicating the query is a 'nome/termo' (name/term), providing essential meaning for what to pass. Although no format examples are given, the single-sentence clarification is sufficient for a basic search.

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 searches UN sanctions lists by name/term, using a specific verb ('Busca') and resource ('listas de sanções da ONU'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'consultas_sancoes_ofac' by specifying the UN context.

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 UN sanctions searches but does not explicitly mention when to use this versus alternatives like OFAC. No exclusions or contextual cues beyond the resource name are given.

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