cnpj_utils

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether operations are read-only or destructive, whether validation follows specific algorithms, or what output format to expect (beyond the 'formato' parameter). For a tool with three distinct operations, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the resource and enumerates the core operations. No wasted words; it directly communicates the tool's scope.

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?

The description covers the main operations but lacks behavioral context, output expectations, and usage guidelines. Given no annotations and no output schema, it should do more to inform an agent about return values, error handling, or operational constraints. It is minimally adequate but incomplete for a 4-parameter 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is fully documented in the schema (e.g., 'cnpjs' is not used in gerar, 'quantidade' is only for gerar, 'formato' controls masking). The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource (CNPJ, Brazilian company registry numbers) and the three operations it supports: gerar, validar, formatar. It distinguishes itself from cpf_utils by focusing on CNPJ rather than CPF, which is a meaningful sibling differentiation. However, the phrasing is somewhat terse and doesn't elaborate on scope or limitations.

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 usage through the listed operations but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cpf_utils. It doesn't state exclusions or prerequisites. The enum in the schema (operacao) gives some implied routing, but the description itself adds no contextual usage instructions.

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