compras_sancao_ceis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those hints: the specific endpoint, a 1-hour cache, and the legal/regulatory significance of CEIS data. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 front-loaded, with each sentence earning its place: purpose, endpoint, legal context, usage directive, and cache behavior. It contains 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?

For a read-only query tool with complete parameter schemas and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what CEIS is, why it matters, when to use it, and caching behavior. It could more explicitly contrast CEIS with other sanctions registries, but the sibling list and the CEIS naming provide enough orientation for selection.

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?

All four parameters are fully described in the input schema, including CNPJ format, Nome, pagina, and orgao_sancionador, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but with full schema coverage the 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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Consulta CEIS — Cadastro de Empresas Inidôneas e Suspensas.' It identifies the exact registry being queried, which implicitly distinguishes it from sibling sanction tools like CNEP, CEAF, and CEPIM. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops just short of a top score.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use sempre antes de homologar pregões e contratos,' supported by the legal consequence that sanctioned companies cannot contract with public administration. It does not state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as compras_checar_sancoes_fornecedor for a broader sanctions check.

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