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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context beyond these: it discloses the pay-per-query billing, that the data is from public official sources, and the LGPD legal responsibility of the client. This is meaningful beyond the annotations, though it stops short of describing runtime behavior like response format or hit/miss handling.

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, consisting of four sentences that cover purpose, billing, data nature, and legal responsibility. It front-loads the core functionality. Some wording is slightly verbose (e.g., the parenthetical about citizen accessibility), but overall it is efficient and every sentence adds meaningful context.

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 is a simple lookup with two parameters and no output schema, so the description should explain return values or result behavior, but it does not. It also fails to explain the 'completo' parameter. While it covers purpose, payment, and data source, these gaps prevent it from being fully complete for a tool with minimal schema support.

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 (Nome, completo) with no descriptions, and the tool description provides no parameter details. While 'Nome' is implicitly the name to check, the optional 'completo' parameter is entirely ambiguous. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent guessing about 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Verifica se um nome consta na lista de sanções financeiras da União Europeia' (Checks if a name appears on the EU financial sanctions list). It clearly states the function and its context ('para diligência de compliance e AML'). No sibling tool is similar, so no further differentiation is needed.

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 usage context: it is for compliance and AML due diligence. It also notes that it is hosted by the platform, requires no credentials, and is paid per query with prepaid credit, which sets expectations. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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