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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the exact endpoint, a 1-hour cache, and the business meaning of active leniency agreements. This goes beyond what the structured annotations alone provide.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, then the endpoint, use-case context, and cache behavior. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or filler.

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 simple read-only tool with two optional parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers what the tool lists, why it matters, where the data comes from, and a relevant operational detail (cache 1h).

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 100%, with both 'cnpj' and 'pagina' already documented. The description adds no additional parameter formatting or behavior details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 'Lista acordos de leniência firmados com a CGU', a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly identifies what the tool does and is distinct from the adjacent sanction-list siblings, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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?

It gives a concrete use case: information for risk analysis in high-value contracting, especially because companies with active leniency agreements are under reinforced compliance obligations. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or how it compares with sibling sanction tools, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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