gerar_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 that the CNPJ is 'válido aleatório' (valid and random) and explains the two format variants, which is useful. However, it does not mention output details such as formatting (e.g., with or without punctuation) or that each call yields a different result, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second explains the parameter values. It is front-loaded, concise, and every word contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and parameter semantics adequately. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit output format details (e.g., whether the result includes dots/slashes), but this is not critical for a generator of this type. Overall, the description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 has a single parameter 'formato' with an enum and default, but 0% description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining the semantic difference between 'numerico' (old format) and 'alfanumerico' (new format), going beyond the bare enum values. This gives the agent clear understanding of how to choose the value.

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 'Gera um CNPJ válido aleatório' (generates a valid random CNPJ), with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'validar_cnpj' (validation) and 'gerar_cpf' (CPF generation).

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 by the name and purpose, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool vs alternatives like validar_cnpj. It does provide guidance on choosing between 'numerico' and 'alfanumerico' formats, but this is parameter-level guidance, not tool-selection guidance.

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