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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the source being official, non-confidential data, and clarifies that the client is the data controller under LGPD. This goes beyond annotations by addressing legal responsibility and data nature, which is valuable for an AI agent.

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, moderately concise, but packs much information: source, hosting, payment, data nature, and legal responsibility. It front-loads purpose, though the legal disclaimer might be slightly verbose for a tool description. Overall, sentences earn their place.

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 source, official nature, and legal context, but lacks details on expected output or result format (since no output schema), any constraints like rate limits or pagination, and does not sufficiently clarify parameter usage. For a simple query tool, it is somewhat complete, but with two undocumented parameters and no output schema, it leaves gaps.

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 two parameters (cpf and cnpj) beyond their names. It does not state that these are identifiers to query, which parameters are required (though schema shows none are required), or how they relate to each other. The description adds minimal value because it doesn't clarify the parameter semantics.

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 the CNEP (Cadastro Nacional de Empresas Punidas) via the Transparency Portal, an official Brazilian source. It distinguishes itself from siblings by describing the specific data source and purpose, though it could more explicitly contrast with sibling tools like marketplace or toolkit_info.

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 context (querying official Brazilian penalties data) and mentions payment via prepaid credit, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites like authentication or when not to use it (e.g., if no CNPJ/CPF is needed).

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