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

While annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds the return structure (a boolean `tem_sancao` and a list with details like type, agency, grounds, and dates). It does not mention potential errors or limitations, but it is not contradictory.

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, using two sentences to convey the purpose, the consolidated sources, and the return value. No extraneous words are present.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (a single parameter and no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the data sources, and the output structure. It could be more explicit about the parameter format, but overall it is fairly 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 provides no description for the `cpf_cnpj` parameter, and the description only states it is for a person or company, implying it accepts either CPF or CNPJ. It does not specify the expected format (e.g., digits only, punctuation, length). Given zero schema coverage, this is insufficient.

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: it consults sanctions for a person or company based on CPF/CNPJ and specifies that it consolidates multiple sanction lists (CEIS, CNEP, CEPIM). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with expenses or political exposure.

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 mentions due diligence and compliance, and the consolidated nature of the sanction lists suggests it is appropriate for comprehensive sanction checks. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other tools or clarify when not to use it.

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