consultar_empresas_lote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions per-CNPJ error handling and the return type (compliance summary + risk score), which is helpful. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, or any authentication or rate limits, which would improve transparency.

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, each carrying essential information: the operation and the use case/error behavior. No superfluous words, front-loaded with core functionality.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the key behavioral aspects (batch, errors per CNPJ, use case). It could mention batch size limit, but that is already in the input schema. Overall complete for a well-known tool pattern.

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%, so both parameters are already well-documented by the schema (e.g., CNPJ formatting, max 50 items). The description adds no new semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 clearly states it queries multiple CNPJs in a single batch call and returns compliance summary plus supplier risk score. The verb 'consulta em lote' and resource 'empresas' are precise, and the scope (batch vs individual) distinguishes it from siblings like consultar_empresa_completa.

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 use for quick screening of supplier portfolios with the phrase 'Útil para triagem rápida de carteira de fornecedores.' While it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like single-company queries, the context is clear enough. Missing explicit when-not-to-use or alternative names.

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