consultar_empresa_completa

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns specific fields (razão social, situação cadastral, porte, regime tributário, CNAEs, endereço, natureza jurídica) and the behavioral characteristic of combining data in one call. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but 'Consulta' strongly implies that, and the listed outputs give useful context about the 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?

The description is concise, consisting of two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the main purpose and follows with a specific list of returned fields, making it efficient and clear.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the existence of an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It lists the key returned fields, covers the input parameter, and explains the differentiating combination. It does not delve into error cases or potential limitations, but those are not essential for such a straightforward query 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?

The schema covers the only parameter 'cnpj' with a clear description of format, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond restating 'CNPJ' in context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Consulta' and clearly specifies the resource (dados enriquecidos de uma empresa brasileira) while explicitly differentiating from sibling tools by stating it combines Receita Federal (CNPJ) and Simples Nacional data in a single call, which distinguishes it from consultar_cnpj and consultar_simples_nacional.

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 by noting the combination of two data sources 'em uma única chamada', suggesting it should be used when both CNPJ and Simples Nacional information are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like consultar_cnpj or consultar_simples_nacional, nor does it mention exclusions.

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