compras_sancao_ceis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It mentions the cache duration (1 hour), which is helpful. The tool is read-only (implied by 'Consulta'), but it does not disclose other traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response structure. Since an output schema exists, the return format is not a gap, but more behavioral context would raise confidence.

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: four sentences covering purpose, endpoint, business implication, usage advice, and cache. Every sentence earns its place 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?

For a 4-parameter query tool with an output schema, the description provides key context: what the data means, when to use it, and cache behavior. It is slightly lacking in guidance on combining parameters and pagination behavior, but the schema descriptions fill most gaps. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the agent to understand the tool's role.

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 each parameter is already documented. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; e.g., it mentions CNPJ format and textual search, but the schema already covers these. The interaction between parameters (AND/OR) is not explained. Baseline 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 it is a query ('Consulta') for the CEIS registry of banned and suspended companies. It explains the meaning of the data (cannot contract with public administration). However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like compras_sancao_cepim or compras_sancao_cnep, which are other sanction databases.

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?

Explicitly says to use this tool 'sempre antes de homologar pregões e contratos' (always before approving bids and contracts), giving a clear when-to-use directive. It does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives like compras_checar_sancoes_fornecedor.

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