radar-cnpj

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

Annotations only declare the mutation/safety profile, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: the pricing model, the 402 response with accepts[] (x402), the direct balance debit with a credit token, and the requirement to repeat the identical call with an X-PAYMENT header to complete the purchase. This is unusually rich disclosure of cost, error handling, and retry semantics for a non-read-only 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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with payment mechanics following. The single paragraph is dense with x402/payment jargon but every clause carries operational information, so it is efficient if somewhat overloaded.

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 only two parameters, the description covers the essential behavior: cost, quota, error response, payment retry, and the end state of a successful call. It is close to complete, with only minor gaps such as what identifies the created watch afterward.

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% and both parameters (cnpj, credito) already carry descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces the credit-token and CNPJ concepts but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource: starting to monitor a CNPJ against the caller's credit wallet. It clearly describes the action's consequence (the watch enters), though it never names the obvious sibling list_watches to make the add-vs-list contrast explicit.

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?

It gives clear operational context: the first 10 watches are free, each additional slot costs US$0.50 for 30 days, and it explains the payment path when the quota is exceeded. It does not, however, tell the agent when not to use this tool or point to an alternative like list_watches for inspection.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description's one genuine addition is 'without charging', which discloses that no payment is incurred – a useful behavioral fact for a tool sitting next to api_access_buy. Beyond that it says nothing about what state is inspected or returned.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted padding, which is good. However, the brevity comes at the cost of clarity – the phrase is grammatically incomplete and leaves the core action unstated, so terseness here is under-specification rather than discipline.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining what the agent gets back, and it does not. It also fails to explain what changes when the optional api_pass is supplied versus omitted, which is the central behavioral question for this 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 description coverage is 100% and the single api_pass parameter is fully documented in the schema, including format and the 'save before buying' guidance. The description adds no parameter meaning on top of that, so the baseline of 3 applies for a fully-covered, single-parameter schema.

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 is a noun phrase ('Monthly data package and private purchase status') with no verb and no clear action, so an agent cannot tell whether this retrieves, verifies, or displays something. It gestures at a status concept but never says what the tool actually does or returns, and it only implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling api_access_buy.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no reference to the obvious alternative, api_access_buy. The clause 'without charging' hints that this is the non-billing path, but the agent must infer the routing decision entirely on its own.

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

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

Annotations give the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive), while the description adds genuine operational context: payment is explicit, no auto-renewal, retries with the same pass reconcile to one purchase, and the X-API-Pass/X-API-Credits-Remaining headers. The retry-recovery guarantee sits in mild tension with idempotentHint=false, though it can be read as pass-scoped reconciliation rather than general idempotency; more explicit disclosure of what happens on failure or with a spent pass would help.

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?

Six short sentences, front-loaded with the price and validity, then payment and retry rules, then headers. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information; no filler.

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 a one-of-many input shape, the description still covers cost, duration, payment requirement, retry reconciliation, non-renewal, scope exclusion and the response header where remaining credits appear. Missing only explicit routing guidance versus the billing/pricing siblings.

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 property descriptions already explain the pass format, the signed x402 payment payload, reconciliation via transaction hash, and prepaid credit_token. The description adds only the price/validity and header names, not additional per-parameter semantics, so the schema remains the primary source.

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 states a specific verb and resource with concrete economics: 'Buy 1,000 basic data reads for US$1, valid for 30 days.' It also carves out scope by noting that OCR, AI, documents and delivery 'keep their own tariffs,' so an agent can distinguish it from sibling billing/pricing/api_access tools.

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?

It gives clear prerequisites ('Requires explicit payment') and lifecycle rules ('No automatic renewal', 'Same pass in retries recovers the same purchase'), plus the operational condition for using the resulting pass ('Send X-API-Pass on eligible data reads'). It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when NOT to buy (e.g., when an existing credit_token should be reused).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the content categories it returns but says nothing about response shape, size, caching, or whether it is a static snapshot versus live state.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is efficient, though it leans toward under-specification rather than genuine conciseness for a discovery endpoint.

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 no-param, no-output-schema index tool, the description minimally conveys what the caller will find (operations, formats, auth, limits). Given the crowded sibling namespace and the absence of output schema, it should at least state that this is the discovery/entry-point call, which it does not.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 identifies the resource ('Índice da API') and enumerates the content it covers (operações, formatos, autenticação, limites), so an agent can infer it returns a catalog of the API surface. However, there is no verb and no differentiation from similarly named siblings such as api_access, ref, or health, leaving the agent to guess whether this is a discovery index or an access reference.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool versus the many sibling endpoints (api_access, ref, health, pricing, etc.). The agent receives no context about whether this is an entry-point/discovery call or something invoked during error recovery.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds substantive behavioral context beyond that: it enumerates the return payload (mapped CNAE, active/opened/closed counts, formalization) and discloses caveats via ficha.limites. It does not explain the non-read-only/non-idempotent side effect (e.g., any credit or record implication of the POST), which keeps it from a 5.

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 core purpose is front-loaded well, but the 'no Google search volume' disclaimer is made twice ('Não estima busca no Google' and '**Não inventa volume de busca**'), and the closing line 'Renda passiva isto não é' is editorial rather than operational. Several sentences do not earn their 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden by listing what comes back and pointing to ficha.limites for caveats, so an agent knows what to expect. It is nearly complete, missing only any note on auth/cost or how the optional uf/municipio hints affect results.

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 texto, uf and municipio are already documented in the schema; the description only indirectly gestures at them ('CNAE + lugar'). Baseline 3 applies — no added syntax, format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Avalia uma ideia de negócio pela quantidade de empresas cadastradas') and pins the exact computation (CNAE + lugar → contagem de ativas), plus the endpoint POST /api/avaliar. It also carves out scope negatively ('Não estima busca no Google'), which separates it from search, suggest and ia_filters among the siblings.

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?

It gives clear context ('É o primeiro produto da home') and a when-not ('Não estima busca no Google'), so an agent knows it is for company-count evaluation rather than keyword/search-volume work. It never names an alternative sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally; 'does not create a charge' largely restates that. It adds no behavioral detail beyond annotations, such as what the summary contains or whether it hits live billing data.

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?

A single tight sentence with the capability up front and the exclusion at the end. It is nearly a fragment, but nothing is wasted.

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 no input parameters, the description is the only place to explain what a 'billing summary' returns, and it doesn't — no fields, scope, or account context. Adequate to avoid mis-invocation but incomplete for a tool whose value depends on its return content.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the schema requires explanation and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter prose.

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 the resource (billing) and hedges it as 'payment discovery and billing summary', which is vague about what is actually returned. It does differentiate from purchase siblings with 'does not create a charge', but an agent still can't tell what billing data this surfaces versus, say, `pricing` or `api_access`.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The negative clause implies a contrast with the buy tools (`api_access_buy`), but the agent must infer that routing rather than being told it.

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

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does deliver: no captcha, no account, no payment, one message per 10s per network with queuing instead of an error, and delivery to the team via email with `email` as reply-to. The disclosure is real, but the rate-limit/delivery facts are restated rather than expanded, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the body is heavily redundant: the 10-second rate limit is stated twice, and 'sem captcha / sem conta / sem pagamento' appears three times in slightly varied wording. Roughly half the sentences could be deleted with no loss of information.

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, the description usefully explains the observable outcome (message reaches the team by email, email used as reply-to) plus auth and rate-limit behavior for a 10-parameter write tool. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears to be missing.

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 every field is documented, including enums and aliases. The description adds only marginal meaning (that `tipo` binds the proposal fields and that `email` becomes the reply address), so the baseline 3 for schema-complete tools is correct.

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+resource ('Fale com quem faz o produto') and explicitly names the two intents it covers: dúvida and sponsorship/partnership/ad proposals. An agent can distinguish this contact tool from every media-oriented sibling (chat_send, post_comment, etc.) without opening the schema.

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?

Clearly says when to use it (a question, or a sponsorship/partnership/ad proposal) and ties the proposal path to the `tipo` field and the slots of `GET /api/partners`. It does not name an alternative tool or state exclusions, but no sibling covers the same ground, so the routing guidance is adequate.

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

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses genuinely useful behavior: individual partner names, phones and email are masked (with `data.mascarado: true`), company partners come whole, and responses are cacheable for up to 6 hours with a freshness caveat. That is exactly the kind of masking and caching context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded and useful, but the masking rule is stated twice – once as 'Sócio pessoa, telefones e e-mail vêm mascarados' and again in the following sentence – which is redundant text an agent does not need. Some tightening would raise this.

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, the description does the heavy lifting by explaining the masking structure, the `data.mascarado` flag, and the 6-hour reuse window. It is close to complete for this tool, though it leaves the broader field list partly unspecified.

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 sole parameter's '14 dígitos' constraint is already in the schema, so the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. The baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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+resource ('Ficha de empresa por CNPJ') and pins the input format (14 dígitos). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling reveal_cnpj by contrasting masked vs. full data, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

It names the alternative explicitly ('o completo é reveal_cnpj') and points to the endpoint that returns unmasked data, which gives clear context for choosing between them. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement for this tool, so it stays just under a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful caveat — the query does not confirm real-time changes, i.e. results may be stale — but says nothing about latency, failure modes, or auth requirements.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the related-tool pointers and the staleness caveat following. Efficient, though the abbreviated "base" is slightly cryptic.

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 no-param, no-output-schema health tool the description is close to sufficient, but it never says what the health result conveys, so an agent cannot judge what to do with the response beyond knowing it may be stale.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 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?

"Health da base" identifies the tool as a database health check, which is a recognizable verb+resource pairing, but it never says what the check reports (status, latency, connectivity). No sibling is a health equivalent, so differentiation is moot, yet the output intent stays vague.

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?

It points to import.dump_date and import.counts for reference date and counts, which implies this tool is the entry point before those queries, but it never states when to call this vs. those directly. Usage is inferred rather than prescribed.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows it is a write-like, non-idempotent operation. The description adds critical behavioral context about latency and timeout handling, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or exact error behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core transformation and then the latency/fallback constraint. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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 one-parameter synchronous AI endpoint, the description covers the main operational risk (latency/timeout) and provides a fallback. However, it does not describe the shape of the returned filters or authentication needs, and there is no output schema to compensate.

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% and the single required parameter 'texto' is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 states a specific transformation (natural text to filters) and names the POST endpoint. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search or suggest.

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?

It provides clear context for the synchronous path (18–20 seconds) and a fallback condition: when it times out, use POST /api/ia/jobs. This is an explicit when-not/alternative, but it does not compare against sibling tools or state when this is preferable to other search-related tools.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds real value beyond them: the quota mechanics (10 free + purchased slots), who validates the quota (origin within the transaction), and the behavioral consequence that over-quota watches return `suspensa: true` and generate no email. This is useful context an agent cannot derive from 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?

Front-loads the purpose well, but the second and third sentences drift into internal implementation detail (the Worker, the origin transaction flow) that adds length without helping an agent decide or invoke correctly. Tighter phrasing would preserve the useful quota/suspensa facts.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description conveys the key result semantics (quota and the `suspensa` flag) an agent needs to interpret output. It is close to complete, missing only explicit sibling routing.

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%; the single `credito` parameter is fully documented in the schema (token from POST /api/credito). The description touches on quota/credit context but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a clear verb+resource: it lists the CNPJs monitored by the credit portfolio, immediately distinguishing it from the write counterpart add_watch. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the read/list scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and purpose (fetch the watches you monitor), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to alternatives like add_watch. No prerequisites for calling are stated.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral context: the result is never cached because caching would attribute one visitor's location to another. That is a genuinely useful correctness/privacy disclosure not derivable from 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?

Two short sentences: the first front-loads what is returned, the second justifies the no-cache behavior. Nothing is padded and no sentence is redundant.

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, the description does name the returned fields (city/UF), which is the most important gap covered. However it omits failure/fallback behavior when the edge location is unknown or unavailable, and does not say whether 'UF' is a code or a name, leaving a modest but real gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument call by never referencing any input, and adds that the answer is derived from the caller's edge rather than a supplied argument.

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 states a concrete verb+resource: it returns the visitor's edge geolocation, narrowed to city/UF. That is far more informative than the bare name/title 'local'. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but no sibling tool is geo-related, so disambiguation 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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite (e.g. only meaningful when a request has an originating visitor). Usage must be inferred from the phrase 'do visitante'. The caching note is a behavioral caveat, not usage guidance.

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

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

The annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description starts from a lower bar. It does add one genuine behavioral fact not in the annotations — that the endpoint is free to call ('no charge') — but says nothing about freshness, caching, or the shape of the pricing data returned.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler; the content claim is front-loaded and immediately followed by the cost reassurance. Every clause earns 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 zero-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description adequately states what is returned (public prices and free allowances) and that the call is free. Only the return format or freshness of the pricing data is left unspecified, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to clarify. It appropriately does not invent parameter detail.

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 names the specific resource it exposes: current public prices and free allowances. It is clear what an agent gets back, though the phrasing is a label rather than a verb+resource statement, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like billing or api_usage that could also look price-related.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no naming of alternatives (billing, api_access_buy, api_usage). 'No charge' is the only usage-relevant hint, signaling the call itself is free, but which tool to consult for actual account costs versus public list prices is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the mode-selection/precedence behavior, which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or result shape; and it names a `codigos` parameter the schema does not contain, which muddies the behavioral picture.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the domain scope and immediately followed by the selection rule — no filler. It loses a point only because one clause is spent on a parameter that does not exist in the schema.

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 2-parameter tool with an enum, no output schema, and a read-only annotation profile, the mode-selection explanation is the main thing needed and it is present. But the description never says what a resolution returns (canonical code vs. label), and it is internally incomplete by referencing `codigos` that callers cannot pass.

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% and both real parameters (`q`, `tipo`) are documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds the q-vs-codigos decision rule, but that rule refers to a parameter absent from the schema, so it adds confusion rather than compensating value.

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 names the reference domains (CNAE/município/natureza) and states that it either searches by text or resolves existing codes, so the general purpose (reference lookup/resolution) is inferable. However, the verb is elided to a bare noun-like "Ref" and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like `search`, `suggest`, or `local` that likely do similar lookups.

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?

It gives an explicit either/or usage rule — search with `q` or resolve codes you already hold — plus a precedence rule: `codigos` wins when both are supplied. That is real when-to-use guidance, though it never references any alternative sibling tool.

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

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

Despite annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context the annotations cannot convey: pricing (US$ 0,10 per company), the two payment rails (Bearer credit vs X-PAYMENT/x402), same-day credit reuse not recharging, per-call x402 charging, and no charge on failure or nonexistent CNPJ. It also discloses the response is not cached.

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 pricing and payment model is restated three times ('Pago: US$ 0,10 por empresa...', 'Custa US$ 0,10 por empresa...', 'o x402 avulso cobra cada revelação'), producing heavy redundancy. The core reveal purpose is front-loaded, but half the text is duplicated billing detail.

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, the description carries the return-value burden; it names the revealed fields (sócios, telefones, e-mail) but not the response structure. For a single-parameter paid tool, the billing, idempotency-by-day and no-cache disclosures make it largely complete.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, with 'cnpj' documented as '14 dígitos'. The description adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, 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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: revealing sócios, telefones and e-mail unmasked for a CNPJ. An agent can tell it apart from a plain lookup like get_cnpj by the 'sem máscara' reveal framing, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over get_cnpj or the other lookup siblings. The text is dominated by payment mechanics rather than selection criteria, so the agent must infer usage from the name and context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: that a query term or filter is mandatory (schema marks zero required parameters) and the scale of the corpus being searched, which explains the constraint.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its inputs, followed by the constraint. The closing rhetorical line about a "dump" is longer than strictly necessary but serves to justify the requirement, so it roughly earns 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 six-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs and the key precondition. It does not discuss pagination defaults or result shape, but those are handled by the schema's defaults and are not strictly needed to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the tipo enum and adds one useful nuance (telefone requires DDD), but contributes little beyond what the schema already documents for q, f, uf, page and pageSize.

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 names a specific verb+resource ("Busca empresas") and enumerates the searchable field types (nome, fantasia, socio, telefone, endereco, cnae), so an agent knows exactly what kind of lookup this is. It does not differentiate from any sibling, but no sibling appears to be a competing search tool, so the purpose stands on its own.

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?

It states a firm precondition: "Exige termo OU pelo menos um filtro", which tells the agent when this call is valid and implicitly when it will fail. The clarifying sentence about scanning 71 million establishments without a filter reinforces the constraint, though no alternative tool is named for unfiltered listing.

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

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the burden is light. The description nonetheless adds a genuine behavioral trait not present in structured fields: this endpoint is excluded from visit metrics so typeahead traffic does not inflate analytics. That is real, non-obvious context, though it says nothing about rate limits or result shape.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded in the first word. The second sentence is a rhetorical justification rather than a fact statement, but it does carry a usable behavioral caveat and does not bloat the definition.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is close to adequate: purpose plus the metrics caveat. It still omits any indication of what the response contains or the expected call frequency, which matters for a typeahead endpoint.

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?

Only one parameter (q) with 100% schema description coverage — "O que já foi digitado" is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, length or encoding detail beyond it, so the baseline 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?

"Autocomplete" names the feature but not a specific verb+resource, and it does not state what it returns (a ranked list of query completions). A sibling named 'search' exists, yet nothing here separates suggest-typeahead behavior from full search, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of the 'search' sibling as an alternative. The description never says this is for incremental keystroke-time queries versus explicit user-initiated searches, leaving routing entirely to inference.

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