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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: no credentials required, cost per query via prepaid credit, data is public access, and LGPD responsibilities for the client. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand the operational and legal aspects.

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 concise and well-structured, front-loading the purpose, then providing operational, access, and compliance details. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 the tool's purpose, hosting, billing, public data nature, and LGPD context. However, it does not specify the return value format or any output, which would be helpful given the lack of an output schema. Still, for a simple read-only lookup, the description is nearly 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%, and the description does not explain the parameters ('Nome', 'Sobrenome', 'completo'). It only implies a name is checked, but does not clarify the required split between first and last name or the meaning of the 'completo' boolean. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 function: it checks whether a name appears on OFAC sanctions lists, including SDN and Non-SDN, for compliance and AML due diligence. This is a specific verb ('Verifica') and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from the unrelated sibling tools.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: for compliance and AML due diligence of names against US sanctions lists. It also adds operational context (hosted by platform, no credentials, prepaid credit) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives. Since all siblings are unrelated, this is sufficient.

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