analyze_cnpj_compliance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output (score, risk, findings) and that it combines multiple data sources into a single report. It implies a read-only analysis without destructive actions. A minor gap is not explicitly stating it is a safe, non-mutating operation.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence clearly defines the tool's function and output, and the second provides usage context. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose.

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 has one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema exists (though not detailed here), the description covers the input, output components (score, risk, findings), and use case. It could slightly benefit from more detail on the output structure, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining the CNPJ is used for fiscal compliance analysis. However, it does not specify the expected format or validation rules for the CNPJ (e.g., 14 digits), relying on common knowledge. The single parameter is self-explanatory from its name.

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 provides a consolidated fiscal compliance analysis for a CNPJ, combining multiple data sources into a single report with a score, risk classification, and actionable findings. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on individual aspects like cadastral data or tax regime.

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 advises using this tool for decisions about hiring, rejecting, or investigating a company. It implies a one-call consolidated assessment, setting clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for specific checks, though the sibling list provides some implicit guidance.

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