consultar_empresas_lote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses per-CNPJ error handling ('com erros por CNPJ retornados se algum dado falhar') and the single-call batching behavior. It does not explicitly state read-only nature or authentication needs, but as a query tool this is acceptable. The error behavior adds significant transparency.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and outcome. It includes the use case and error behavior without any redundant phrasing. 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?

Given that an output schema exists and the input schema fully documents parameters, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, use case, and error handling. It does not explain the 'criterios_estritos' parameter, but that is documented in the schema. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when to use the tool and understand its behavior.

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% for both parameters (cnpjs and criterios_estritos), each with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema – it mentions 'múltiplos CNPJs' which aligns with the schema but adds no new detail. Baseline 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 clearly states a specific action ('Consulta em lote' – batch query), the resource ('múltiplos CNPJs'), and the outcome ('resumo de compliance + score de risco de fornecedor para cada empresa'). The 'em lote' aspect distinguishes it from single-CNPJ siblings like consultar_cnpj, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 a concrete use case: 'Útil para triagem rápida de carteira de fornecedores' (useful for quick screening of supplier portfolios). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, though the batch nature is implicit. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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