compras_sancao_acordos_leniencia

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only or destructive, nor does it mention authentication requirements or rate limits. However, it does add context about the cache duration (1 hour) and the endpoint URL, which informs the agent about data freshness. The behavioral transparency is adequate but incomplete, earning a 3.

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 extremely concise: three sentences covering purpose, endpoint, business context, and cache behavior. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler. This is an exemplary model of conciseness.

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 has only 2 parameters (both optional), a rich output schema (though not detailed in context), and low complexity, the description is nearly complete. It covers the data source, caching, and business context. The only minor gap is lack of explicit statement about the return format (e.g., JSON response structure), but the output schema exists and likely documents that. A 4 is appropriate.

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 input schema has 2 parameters with 100% description coverage, and the description does not add semantics beyond the schema. The parameter descriptions in the schema are clear ('CNPJ do sancionado (14 dígitos)', 'Página (1-based)'). The description itself does not explain parameter format or usage further. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists leniency agreements ('acordos de leniência') with CGU. It specifies the API endpoint and explains the business relevance: companies with active agreements are under enhanced compliance commitments, useful for risk analysis in high-value contracts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `compras_sancao_ceis` (general sanctions list) and `compras_checar_sancoes_fornecedor` (check supplier sanctions), making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 explicitly mentions that the data is useful for risk analysis in high-value procurement, providing clear context for when to use this tool (e.g., assessing supplier risk). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand appropriate scenarios. A 4 is appropriate as it gives clear guidance without explicit exclusions.

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