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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds substantial behavioral context: no credentials required, prepaid credit payment, access to public official information, and LGPD data-controller responsibilities. This enriches the agent's understanding of cost, auth, and legal implications without contradicting 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 three sentences long, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The additional sentences about hosting, payment, and LGPD are relevant to a compliance tool but could be perceived as slightly verbose. It remains concise 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 tool has no output schema, so the description should describe return values or response behavior. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, list of matches) or the semantics of 'completo'. While the core purpose and context are covered, this missing functional detail leaves the description incomplete.

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. It clarifies 'Nome' implicitly ('verifica se um nome') but leaves the boolean 'completo' completely unexplained. With two parameters, one is undocumented, and the description does not fully compensate for the schema's lack of parameter details.

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: 'Verifica se um nome consta na lista de sanções internacionais da Suíça (SECO)', with a specific verb (verifica) and resource (sanctions list). It also specifies the use case (compliance and AML due diligence), distinguishing it 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 ('para diligência de compliance e AML') and mentions the pay-per-query model, but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it. However, siblings are unrelated platform utilities, so no direct alternative is available.

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