pncp_obter_orgaos_por_cnpj

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that this is a read operation on 'dados públicos' (public data), which signals a non-destructive, likely unauthenticated query. However, it does not mention response shape, possible error behavior for invalid CNPJs, or the meaning of the normalizado/original output modes.

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 one compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the purpose before the endpoint detail. It is slightly redundant because 'ação consultar ente' repeats the verb from the first clause, but overall it is efficient and readable.

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 absence of annotations and an output schema, plus a sibling list with several similarly named tools, the description is under-specified. It leaves the agent without disambiguation guidance, CNPJ format expectations, or any sense of what the response contains, making correct selection and invocation harder than necessary.

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 50%: only 'formato' is documented in the schema, while 'cnpj' has just a type. The description adds no parameter detail beyond restating the placeholder {cnpj} in the path; it fails to specify whether CNPJ should be raw digits or formatted with punctuation, which is essential for a correct call.

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 names a specific verb ('Consulta') and resource ('dados públicos de órgãos e unidades públicas') and pinpoints the exact endpoint path /v1/orgaos/{cnpj}. It clearly conveys that this tool fetches a single public entity by CNPJ, but it does not explicitly differentiate from near-identical siblings such as pncp_obter_orgaos_unidades_por_cnpj.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. The only usage signal is the path template /v1/orgaos/{cnpj}, which implies 'use when you have a CNPJ', but the description never states exclusions or points to siblings like pncp_listar_orgaos or pncp_obter_orgaos_unidades_por_cnpj for different needs.

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