compras_checar_sancoes_fornecedor

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

Despite no annotations, the description covers key behavioral traits: parallel calls to multiple sources, return type (boolean + list), error condition (ComprasAuthError if API key missing), and caching (10 min). It does not discuss rate limits or idempotency, but for a read-like operation this is sufficient.

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?

Four concise sentences: purpose, composition, return, error+usage+cache. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded with critical information. No redundancy.

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 output schema exists and the tool has a single parameter, the description covers all essential aspects: consolidation logic, error handling, caching, and recommended use case. It is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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% with a clear description for the single parameter 'cnpj'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation of 3.

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 it consolidates sanctions from multiple sources (CEIS, CNEP, CEPIM, leniência, impedimentos) and returns a boolean verdict plus a consolidated list. This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like compras_sancao_ceis or compras_sancao_cnep, which cover only individual lists.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Sempre use antes de homologar pregões/contratos' (always use before finalizing bids/contracts), providing clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the consolidation purpose implies when the granular sibling tools would be preferred.

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