Brazilian regulatory risk & compliance screen

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (verdict + 0–100 risk score, active vs historical hits), the data sources (three registries), and that it is company-level public data. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but the read-only nature is implied. No contradictions.

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 two sentences. The first sentence covers purpose and behavior; the second provides differentiation, limitations, and cost. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 tool screens against multiple registries and returns a verdict with risk scores, the description covers the essential aspects: what it screens, what it returns, how it differs from siblings, and key constraints (LGPD, cost). It does not detail the risk score calculation or output structure, but since there is no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and use the tool correctly.

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?

There is only one parameter (cnpj) and the schema already fully describes it (100% coverage). The description mentions 'by CNPJ' but does not add additional semantic details beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states the tool screens Brazilian companies by CNPJ against specific federal registries (CEIS, CNEP, leniency-agreement). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling global screening tools, noting it covers a gap global screens miss. The title and description align perfectly.

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 explicitly tells when to use: as a complement to global OFAC/EU/UK/UN and PEP screens for Brazilian-specific risk. It also mentions limitations (no CPF due to LGPD) and cost ($0.03), helping agents decide. It does not explicitly say when not to use, but the differentiation implicitly covers that.

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