consultar_fornecedor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one useful behavioral trait — that an empty query returns active suppliers by default — but omits read-only nature, pagination behavior, and what 'situação' contains, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the usage condition following immediately. No wasted words, though it is quite short relative to the four undocumented parameters it needs to cover.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. However, with 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and three parameters untouched, the description is only adequate for the primary use case and leaves the listing/pagination path under-specified.

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 0% with four parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the cnpj parameter (give a value vs. leave empty) but says nothing about ativo, pagina, or tamanho_pagina, leaving three of four parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (consulta) and resource (cadastro de fornecedores do governo federal) and clarifies it operates in two modes depending on CNPJ presence. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, but no sibling concerns suppliers, so the resource itself is distinguishing.

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?

Explicitly names the two invocation modes: supply a CNPJ for a specific supplier's situation, or leave empty to list active suppliers. This is clear context for how to call it, though it offers no exclusions or alternative tools to consider.

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