empresas_do_socio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only listing and explains the homonym-disambiguation behavior, which is useful, but says nothing about result limits, pagination, or what happens when multiple partners match the name.

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 dense sentences, no filler, with the purpose stated first and the input guidance second. Every clause 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does reasonable work by naming the returned attributes and the input disambiguation strategy. It falls short only on volume/limit behavior and failure modes for ambiguous names.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value: it explains why CPF is preferred (excluir homônimos) and that CNPJ alone returns the companies where a legal entity is a partner, clarifying the semantics of each parameter's combination.

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+resource ('Lista as empresas em que... figura como sócia') and even names the fields returned (situação, município). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like buscar_socio or consultar_cnpj because it returns the reverse relationship (companies for a given partner).

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?

Gives conditional input guidance: use the exact name as returned by buscar_socio, preferably plus CPF to disambiguate homonyms, or only CNPJ to list a legal entity's participations. It references the sibling buscar_socio as the source of the name, but does not state when not to use this tool versus the other sibling lookups.

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