compras_sancao_acordos_leniencia

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds beyond these by specifying a 1-hour cache and explaining the real-world significance of active leniency agreements, which is useful context an agent cannot derive from the schema.

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?

Three short, purposeful sentences: the core action, the endpoint and business context, and the caching behavior. Everything earns its place and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete. It adds the cache detail and a concrete use case, so no essential operational information is missing.

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 parameters clearly documented ('CNPJ do sancionado' and 'Página'). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific action and resource: listing leniency agreements ('acordos de leniência') signed with the CGU, and gives the exact endpoint. This clearly differentiates it from sibling sanction-list tools like compras_sancao_ceis or compras_sancao_cnep.

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 frames when the data is useful: risk analysis for high-value contracting ('análise de risco em contratações de alto valor'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or list exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a 5.

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