consultar_certidao_federal

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It says it 'guides' and 'provides URLs' but doesn't state whether it's a read-only operation, whether it queries live systems, or any side effects. It also doesn't mention permissions or rate limits, which is a significant gap.

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 sentences, efficient, and front-loads purpose. No wasted words; the structure is clear and to the point.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown) but the description is fairly brief. It doesn't clarify what the tool returns (e.g., actual certificate, URLs, or instructions) beyond mentioning URLs and automation alternatives. For a tool with one parameter and a guidance role, it could be more explicit about the output and whether it performs a live check.

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 schema already fully documents the parameter (CPF/CNPJ with length and formatting). The description adds little beyond the schema, only mentioning 'para CNPJ ou CPF' which is already in the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, 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?

The description clearly states the tool guides on consulting the Certidão Negativa de Débitos (CND) from Receita Federal and PGFN for CNPJ or CPF, and mentions providing URLs and automation alternatives. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like consultar_cnpj (company data) and consultar_certidao_fgts (FGTS certificate).

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 mentions it's for CNPJ or CPF and provides guidance, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over other consultation tools. It lacks exclusions or comparisons to siblings, leaving the agent to infer based on the certificate name.

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