consultar_certidao_fgts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what data it returns (beyond a URL), or any side effects. The description suggests it returns guidance rather than the certificate itself, but this is implicit and not fully transparent.

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 extremely concise, using only two short sentences. It avoids redundancy and focuses on the essential purpose and deliverable, with no filler or unnecessary details.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It provides enough context about the tool's function (guidance and URL) to frame its behavior, and the single parameter is well defined in the schema.

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 provides a full description of the CNPJ parameter, including formatting details. The description adds no extra semantic information beyond what is in the schema, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: guiding on how to consult the FGTS Regularity Certificate (CRF) for a CNPJ. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like consultar_certidao_federal by specifying the FGTS-specific certificate and providing automation alternatives.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other related tools. It mentions providing automation alternatives but does not clarify under what circumstances an agent should select this tool over, for example, direct consultation tools or other certificate queries.

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