consultar_cnpj

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('consulta' and 'retorna'), but does not disclose potential behaviors like data freshness, error handling, or rate limits. The neutral tone is adequate but not explicit.

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?

Two sentences, each essential: first states purpose and returns, second covers input flexibility. No wasted words; information is front-loaded and scannable.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description lists key return fields and input requirements. It lacks error handling or rate limit notes, but covers the primary use case sufficiently. Slightly more guidance on sibling tools would improve completeness.

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%; the schema already explains the cnpj parameter format with examples. The tool description repeats this information and adds return field details, but does not add new semantic meaning to the parameter itself. 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 explicitly states the tool queries complete registration data of a company by CNPJ, listing specific return fields (razão social, endereço, etc.), and clarifies input formatting. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings that perform compliance analysis, batch lookups, or other tasks.

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 implies the tool is for single CNPJ registration data lookup, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., consultar_empresas_lote for batch, analyze_cnpj_compliance for compliance). No exclusions or contrasting guidance are provided.

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