buscar_socio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses output composition (homônimos agrupados por CPF mascarado, faixa etária, contagem de empresas, UFs/municípios), per-mode latency, a first-call ~130 MB download for 'contem', and the caveat that 'contem' omits municípios. This is exactly the cost/behavior context an agent needs before choosing a mode.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then output shape, then workflow routing, then mode trade-offs. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates by describing both behavior and returned fields, which is enough to invoke the tool correctly. Minor gaps remain (the purpose/behavior of 'limite' and any default value) but nothing critical is missing.

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 60%; 'modo' has no schema description but the description fully explains its three values with performance implications, adding real meaning beyond the enum list. 'uf' and 'cpf' are already documented in the schema, and 'limite' remains unexplained in both places, keeping this below a 5.

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 (procura) and resource (pessoas/empresas no quadro societário) scoped to name lookup, and clearly separates itself from the sibling buscar_empresa_por_nome by operating on sócios rather than empresas. An agent can distinguish it from every sibling without opening the schema.

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 routes the workflow with 'Use antes de empresas_do_socio', giving clear sequencing context and naming the follow-up tool. It does not state when NOT to use it versus alternatives like buscar_empresa_por_nome, so it falls short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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