generate_cnpj

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (generates a random valid CNPJ) and the formatting option. For a simple generator, this is adequate, though it could explicitly state return type or absence of side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It states the purpose first, then the optional formatting detail. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what it does and how to use the parameter. It doesn't need to explain return values because the output is implied by 'gera um CNPJ'. The sibling context further clarifies its 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?

The schema already describes the 'formatted' parameter with 100% coverage, but the description adds the exact mask 'XX.XXX.XXX/XXXX-XX', which is more specific than the schema's 'Retornar com pontuação'. This adds valuable meaning beyond the schema.

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 generates a valid random CNPJ, using the specific verb 'Gera' (generates) and the resource 'CNPJ'. It also includes the optional formatted output format, distinguishing it from sibling validation tools.

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 intent is clear: use when you need a random valid CNPJ, as opposed to validation tools like validate_cnpj. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is unambiguous for an agent.

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