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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints, and the description adds genuine context on top: it aggregates via parallel calls to Portal da Transparência and Comprasnet, raises ComprasAuthError when TRANSPARENCIA_API_KEY is unset, and has a 10-minute cache. It does not speculate on partial-failure behavior when one of the parallel sources fails, which would have made it a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose followed by composition, error behavior, usage directive, and cache — each sentence earns its place. There is mild redundancy between 'CEIS + CNEP + CEPIM + leniência + impedimentos' in the first line and the parallel-composition sentence, but the text overall is appropriately compact.

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 1-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, a rich output schema, and informative annotations, the description covers the main operational context: sources, return shape (verdict + consolidated list), auth prerequisite, cache, and when to call it. A minor gap is the unspecified behavior when one of the parallel upstream systems is unavailable.

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 100% — the schema already describes cnpj as 'CNPJ do fornecedor (14 dígitos, com ou sem pontuação)'. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the full semantic load.

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 opens with a specific verb + resource ('Consolida sanções de um fornecedor') and enumerates the exact sources aggregated (CEIS, CNEP, CEPIM, leniência, impedimentos). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling sancao_* tools (compras_sancao_ceis, compras_sancao_cnep, etc.), which fetch single lists, whereas this one consolidates them.

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?

Provides an explicit usage directive: 'Sempre use antes de homologar pregões/contratos', which tells the agent when to invoke it. However, it stops short of naming the per-source alternatives as lower-cost options for when only one list is needed, so some exclusion guidance is missing.

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