consultar_cnpj

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly describes the output (fields returned) and input flexibility (CNPJ formatting). While it doesn't mention error handling or rate limits, the read-only nature is implied, and the description is adequate for a simple query tool.

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: the first states the purpose and outputs, the second adds input formatting detail. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no extraneous information.

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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the main aspects: what it does, what it returns, and input flexibility. It could mention edge cases like invalid CNPJ, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward lookup tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds overall context for the parameter by listing what data is returned, but does not provide additional syntactic or semantic detail beyond the schema's own description of the CNPJ parameter.

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 consults complete registration data of a company by CNPJ, listing specific fields returned (company name, address, CNAE, partners, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'consultar_empresa_completa' or 'consultar_simples_nacional' which may have different scopes.

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 versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Implicitly it is for basic CNPJ lookup, but no explicit differentiation from siblings like 'analyze_cnpj_compliance' or 'risk_score_supplier'.

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