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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful extra context: the tool is hosted on the platform, requires no credentials, costs prepaid credit per query, and accesses public official data. It also clarifies the client's LGPD obligations, which is valuable 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 of three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds relevant detail (compliance use case, access model, data privacy), though the legal caveat could be seen as slightly verbose. It remains efficient and well-structured.

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 purpose, access, cost, and data sensitivity, but does not describe the return value or output format, which matters because there is no output schema. For a simple verification tool this is a notable gap, but the core operational context is adequately addressed.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the parameters (Nome, Sobrenome, completo). It only mentions 'nome' generically, leaving 'completo' ambiguous and failing to clarify how the parameters interact. The description needed to compensate for the empty schema but did not.

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 the consolidated UN Security Council sanctions list, with a specific verb ('Verifica') and a defined resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are unrelated (authenticate, marketplace, etc.).

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 specifies when to use the tool ('para diligência de compliance e AML') and provides practical context (no credentials, pay-per-query with prepaid credit). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are clearly not competing options.

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