Full KYB profile of a Brazilian company (one call)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It transparently discloses the cost ($0.05 USDC via x402) and payment mechanism, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, whether results include raw vs processed data, or what happens on sanctions hits (does it block or just report?). Key pricing transparency is a plus but other behavioral traits are sparse.

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?

Two crisp sentences, zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the full scope with a colon-delimited enumeration of the 5 data domains, and the second establishes value (replaces 5 calls) and cost. 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?

The description thoroughly covers what data is included, the pricing model, and its relationship to single-purpose tools. There's no output schema, so return format isn't guaranteed, but for a bundle tool this is acceptable. It could note whether the sanctions/branch/contract results are combined or returned separately, but the completeness is strong for a single-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 the single 'cnpj' parameter is fully documented in the schema (14 digits, with/without punctuation). The description adds no further parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage baseline of 3 for a single simple 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 verb+resource: it's a 'full KYB profile of a Brazilian company' enrichment bundle. It enumerates the exact data sources included (registration, partners, branches, sanctions, Central Bank, contracts) and explicitly distinguishes it from 5 separate lookups, differentiating it from sibling tools like cnpj_consultar_empresa_completo and integridade_consultar.

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 says it 'replaces 5 separate lookups' and implies it's a one-call comprehensive bundle for KYB workflows. It positions this as the consolidated choice versus the individual sibling tools, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., when only a single field is needed, where a targeted lookup might be cheaper/faster) or mention alternatives by name.

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