Br Validate Cpf

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it reveals only the high-level action. It does not disclose whether validation involves check digits, formatting, or both; whether invalid CPFs return false or throw; or whether any external lookup occurs.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler; 'Brazilian' and 'individual taxpayer ID' usefully disambiguate CPF from CNPJ. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 one-input tool with an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient, but it omits usage guidance and behavioral semantics that would make it robust. It is adequate rather than complete.

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 100% and the cpf parameter is already documented as accepting or omitting '.' and '-' separators, so the description adds no extra parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies because the 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 uses a specific verb ('Validate') and a clear resource ('Brazilian CPF (individual taxpayer ID)'). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling validators like br__validate_cnpj, but the resource is unambiguous and distinct.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided; nothing points to br__validate_cnpj for company IDs or other validation alternatives. The only implied context is the tool name itself.

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