investigar_empresa

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the non-obvious return behavior (small index of investigation_id plus per-section counts), that nothing is discarded, that related companies spawn sub-investigations, and how to read them. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and identifier semantics, and every sentence carries information. It is somewhat dense and long, with minor repetition about section reading, but nothing is wasted given the unusual index-return design.

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?

Despite a rich output schema existing, the return value here is non-obvious (an index, not data), and the description explains it fully along with pagination, resource access, and recursive expansion. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or consume the result correctly is missing.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates: 'identificador' is required and accepts CNPJ with or without punctuation or a company name; 'profundidade' is an integer defaulting to 1, max 2, and 0 means only the requested company. Semantics of the depth levels are spelled out beyond the bare 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?

States a specific verb (investiga) and resource (empresa) plus the accepted identifiers (CNPJ or nome), and enumerates the data domains it aggregates. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'obter_secao_investigacao', so an agent can route between them without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly says this tool does NOT return the full data and directs the agent to 'obter_secao_investigacao' or the MCP resource for reading sections, including the recursive path through sub-investigations. When-to-use and the alternative are both stated.

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