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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this with concrete detail: 201 on create, 200 on repeat with no new query/write, a 20-company cap, and exactly what data is imported (registration data, no partners/contacts, no analysis started). It does not explain why the operation is flagged destructive (e.g., credit consumption or overwrite), which is the one behavioral trait left opaque.

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?

Several short, front-loaded sentences; the core action leads and behavioral facts follow. Each sentence carries information (status codes, cap, import scope), though the telegraphic style packs a lot without transitional framing.

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?

With no output schema and one simple parameter, the description adequately covers the return codes, idempotency, quantity limit, and import scope, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Only the rationale behind the destructive flag remains unexplained.

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% and the single parameter already specifies 'CNPJ completo, 14 dígitos com verificação válida'. The description adds no format, validation, or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 for full-coverage schemas 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?

States a specific verb pair (imports and links) plus the resource (CNPJ/company) and its scope ('ao próprio dono'). An agent can tell this creates a company-to-owner association. It does not, however, name or contrast with siblings such as buscar_empresa, remover_empresa, or minha_empresas, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 usage through behavioral facts (idempotent repeat returns 200, up to 20 companies) but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never points to an alternative sibling. The 20-company ceiling is the closest thing to a usage constraint.

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