compras_sancao_ceaf

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations by disclosing that CPFs are masked under LGPD with an example format and that results are cached for 1 hour. This gives the agent important expectations about data format and freshness without contradicting any annotations.

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 well-structured, opening with the resource name, then the endpoint, subject matter, a practical use case, and two critical behavioral caveats. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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's low complexity, full schema coverage, output schema presence, and comprehensive annotations, the description supplies all essential context: what the registry is, when to use it, the data format mask, and cache behavior. Nothing necessary for correct selection or invocation 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%, so all three parameters (cpf, nome, pagina) are already documented in the schema. The description adds the LGPD masking format, which is relevant to interpreting cpf results, but it does not need to re-explain parameter meanings given full schema coverage.

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 consults CEAF, the Cadastro de Expulsões da Administração Federal, and defines the subject matter as federal public servants expelled from public service. It identifies the endpoint and resource precisely, but does not explicitly differentiate CEAF from sibling sanction tools like compras_sancao_ceis or compras_sancao_cnep, relying on the acronym and scope rather than an explicit contrast.

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 gives a clear usage context: it is useful when a suspicious responsible party or proxy is identified. It does not, however, provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention which sibling sanction list tools should be used instead for other scenarios.

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