compras_sancao_cnep

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description's additional context is valuable: the endpoint `/api-de-dados/cnep`, the legal basis, and the 1-hour cache. There is no contradiction with the 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 front-loaded: purpose first, then endpoint, legal context, use-case relevance, and cache behavior. Every clause 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?

For a simple read-only query tool with three optional, fully documented parameters and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it includes the endpoint, legal foundation, purpose, and caching. The main gap is the absence of guidance distinguishing this CNEP lookup from the closely related sibling sanction tools.

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 the input schema already documents cnpj, nome, and pagina. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly identifies the action ('Consulta CNEP') and the resource ('Cadastro Nacional de Empresas Punidas') with the relevant law (Lei Anticorrupção/12.846/2013). It is specific and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate CNEP from sibling sanction tools such as CEIS, CEAF, or CEPIM, so it misses the 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 implies the use case — consulting punished companies as an integrity-risk indicator — but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling sanction-list tools or the general sanctions checker. Usage context is present but only by inference.

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