consultar_cnae

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 states the tool is a read-only consultation ('Consulta') and mentions the return of code and description, which is sufficient for a simple lookup. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors such as error handling for invalid codes or any prerequisites, though these are minor for this type of 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 description is concise with two sentences: the first states the action and output, the second gives the use case. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and contains no redundant 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?

For a simple lookup tool with an output schema (though not shown), the description adequately covers what the tool does and returns. It could mention how it differs from 'buscar_cnae' to help agents choose correctly, but the core information needed to invoke it correctly is present.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for the 'codigo' parameter, explaining the 7-digit format and optional punctuation. The tool description reinforces this by mentioning 'código de subclasse (7 dígitos)' but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter thoroughly.

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 consults a CNAE economic activity by 7-digit subclass code and returns the official code and description from the IBGE table. It is specific about the resource and purpose, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'buscar_cnae', which likely serves a similar purpose but possibly with different search criteria.

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 when you have a CNAE code and need to identify the business segment, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'buscar_cnae' or other consult tools. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned.

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