consultar_status_mei

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it uses BrasilAPI and describes the return format, but does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or specific conditions like whether it handles invalid CNPJs.

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. It efficiently states the purpose and the return information without unnecessary details, and is well-structured.

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 description provides sufficient context for a simple lookup tool, stating what it returns (status and dates). However, it does not mention what happens for invalid or not-found CNPJs, and the distinction from similar sibling tools is only implicit. Given the output schema exists, it is mostly complete but could be enhanced.

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 describes the 'cnpj' parameter with format and examples. The tool description does not add any extra meaning or constraints beyond that, so it meets the baseline for a fully covered schema.

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 queries MEI and Simples Nacional status for a CNPJ via BrasilAPI. It specifies the verb 'Consulta' and resource 'status de MEI e Simples Nacional de um CNPJ', making it distinct from other CNPJ-related tools.

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 provide any guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives like 'consultar_simples_nacional' or 'consultar_cnpj'. No explicit usage scenarios or differentiators are mentioned.

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