analyze_cnpj_compliance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool combines data from multiple sources and produces a score, risk classification, and actionable findings. It does not mention limitations like data freshness or authentication, but the behavioral traits are well-communicated for a read-only analysis.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then detailing the output structure. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 complexity (combining multiple data sources) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the report components (score, risk, findings) and intended use. Minor gaps like scoring methodology are likely covered by the output schema.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'cnpj' already well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, so 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 clearly states it performs a consolidated fiscal compliance analysis of a CNPJ, combining multiple data sources into a single report with score, risk, and findings. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like consultar_simples_nacional or consultar_cnae, which are single-source queries.

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 explicitly says to use this tool for deciding to hire/refuse/investigate a company in one call, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, though siblings are available.

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