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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds valuable context: hosted by the platform, no credentials, prepaid credit cost, public-source data, and LGPD responsibilities. This gives the agent a well-rounded understanding of the tool's operational and legal 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds relevant information. The three sentences are concise and cover purpose, access method, cost, data source, and legal context without unnecessary verbosity.

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 lookup tool, the description covers most critical aspects: what it does, when to use it, cost, authentication, data nature, and legal responsibility. However, the missing semantics of the 'completo' parameter is a notable gap, as is the lack of any indication of the return format (though no output schema exists).

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 by explaining parameters. It implicitly covers 'Nome' through the main purpose, but the 'completo' boolean parameter is completely undocumented, leaving the agent without guidance on whether it means full-name matching, exhaustive search, or something else.

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 uses a specific verb+resource structure: 'Verifica se um nome consta nas listas do FinCEN'. This clearly distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling tools and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 states the intended use context ('para diligência de compliance e AML'), which is clear guidance for when to use this tool. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but no similar sibling tools exist, so the lack of explicit comparison is not a significant gap.

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