compras_sancao_cepim

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears the full burden. It mentions a cache of 1 hour, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it doesn't disclose whether results are read-only, whether authentication is required, or any rate limits or consequences of use. Minimal but acceptable for a query tool.

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 short (4 lines in Portuguese) and front-loaded with the tool's purpose and endpoint. Every sentence adds value: name, what it queries, endpoint, applicable scope, cache. No wasted words, though could be slightly more structured.

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 is present, description doesn't need to detail returns. The tool is simple (0 required params, 3 optional) and the description covers the core purpose and a notable behavior (cache). Missing context on when to use this specific sanction type vs. others, but adequate for a straightforward lookup tool.

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 all three parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description does not add any supplementary info beyond what the schema provides, so 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 consults 'CEPIM — Entidades Privadas Sem Fins Lucrativos Impedidas', specifying the endpoint and applicable context (convênios/termos de fomento com OSCs). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools that also check sanctions (e.g., compras_sancao_ceis, compras_sancao_cnep), though the specific focus on private non-profits is implicit.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like other sanction checks (ceis, cnep, ceaf) or when not to use it. It lacks usage context, prerequisites, or conditions under which this tool excels.

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