compras_sancao_cepim

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description does not need to restate it. It adds practical details like 'Cache 1h' and the endpoint, but no additional behavior such as result interpretation or pagination behavior, making 3 appropriate.

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 three brief sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then adds endpoint, applicability, and cache information, each earning its place.

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 read-only query tool, the description plus schema and annotations cover most needs: inputs are documented, output schema exists, and safety is declared. It could clarify behavior when no filter is provided or whether cnpj and nome can be combined, but these are minor gaps.

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%: cnpj, nome, and pagina are all documented with their formats and defaults. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 opens with 'Consulta CEPIM — Entidades Privadas Sem Fins Lucrativos Impedidas', naming a specific verb, target registry, and subject. This clearly differentiates it from sibling sanction tools such as CEIS, CNEP, CEAF, and leniency agreements.

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 states a clear applicability: 'Aplicável a contratações via convênios e termos de fomento com OSCs.' This gives the agent a concrete condition for choosing this tool, though it does not explicitly exclude the sibling sanction-list tools.

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