compras_sancao_ceaf

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

The description clearly discloses that CPFs are masked per LGPD (showing example format) and that results are cached for 1 hour. With no annotations provided, these behavioral details are essential and fully transparent.

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 very concise, with only three short bullets (title, endpoint/usage, behavior notes). Every sentence adds value with no redundancy 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?

Given the output schema exists and schema coverage is full, the description covers key behaviors (masking, caching). It could mention the maximum number of results per page or that pagination is available, but it's functionally complete for typical use.

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%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no new info about parameters but reinforces the overall context. A slight deduction for not explaining pagination purpose or limit, but the schema covers it.

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 is for querying the CEAF database of federal employees expelled from public service. It specifies the endpoint and notes the useful scenario of investigating a suspect representative. This distinguishes it from sibling tools dealing with other sanction registries (e.g., CEIS, CNEP, CEPIM).

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 indicates the tool is useful when identifying a suspect responsible party. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (like compras_sancao_ceis and compras_sancao_cnep) suggests other sanction databases exist. The guidance is clear enough for a focused tool.

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