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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context: payment with prepaid credit, no authentication required, and LGPD data-controller responsibilities, which are not captured in 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 four sentences covering purpose, access model, data nature, and legal responsibility. Each sentence adds useful information, though the legal disclaimers slightly extend the length.

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?

The description covers key operational aspects (paid, no auth, public data) and legal considerations, but lacks details about the response format and does not resolve whether one or both identifiers are needed. Since there is no output schema, more guidance on returned data would be helpful.

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, but it only names CPF/CNPJ as identifiers without format or usage details. It fails to explain the optional 'completo' parameter, and its 'ou' (or) wording conflicts with the schema's requirement for both CPF and CNPJ.

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 consults CVM sanctioning administrative processes for individuals/legal entities using CPF or CNPJ. The verb 'Consulta' is specific, and the scope (CVM, sanctions, pessoa física/jurídica) is unambiguous. It distinguishes from unrelated siblings.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use: hosted by the platform, no credentials, prepaid credit, and access to public data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are unrelated. Minor ambiguity arises from saying 'CPF ou CNPJ' while the schema requires both parameters.

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