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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context: the tool is hosted by the platform, requires no credentials, has a pay-per-query cost with prepaid credit, and accesses only public data. It also clarifies the client's LGPD data controller responsibility. These go beyond the 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 a single paragraph with four sentences, each providing a distinct piece of information: purpose, hosting/payment, public data nature, and LGPD. It's appropriately sized, though slightly dense. No redundant content.

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 tool with no output schema, the description gives a clear overview and important operational details. However, the missing explanation for the 'completo' parameter and any indication of the result format leave gaps. Overall adequate but not 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?

The schema has two parameters with no descriptions, and the description only implicitly clarifies 'Nome' as the name to check. The purpose of 'completo' is not explained, leaving the agent unsure whether it means full match, complete name, or something else. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't fully.

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 checks whether a name appears on Australia's international sanctions list (DFAT), with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the context of compliance and AML. This distinguishes it from generic sibling tools, though no direct alternatives exist.

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 context for use (compliance and AML due diligence) and notes it's for public information, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. Since siblings are unrelated, this is acceptable.

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