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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context: it's hosted by the platform, requires prepaid credit per query, and clarifies data is not confidential and the client is responsible for LGPD compliance. This goes beyond annotations by explaining the commercial and legal context.

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 paragraph with three sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, commercial terms, and legal context. It's concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, though the legal disclaimer could be seen as slightly verbose for a tool description.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It explains the data source and legal context but doesn't clarify what the query returns, how to structure queries, or any limitations. The annotations cover safety, but the description lacks operational details for a tool with multiple optional parameters.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (cpf, cnpj, nome, numero_processo). While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description provides no guidance on which parameters are required, how they interact, or format expectations. With zero coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't.

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 queries CVM administrative sanctioning processes from an official source, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on CVM processes, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for similar queries.

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 consulting official Brazilian sources and mentions payment via prepaid credits, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The context of official data and LGPD compliance gives some guidance, but it's not explicit about when-not-to-use.

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