empresas_no_endereco

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does not disclose the default value or effect of somente_ativas (i.e. whether inactive registrations are returned), pagination behavior, or result-size limits. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, this is a notable gap.

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 tight sentences, purpose first and use case second, with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a five-parameter lookup tool.

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 five parameters, 60% schema coverage, no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the agent guessing about default filtering, result limits and matching behavior. It covers purpose and motivation but not the operational details needed to invoke the tool confidently.

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 60%. The description restates numero and logradouro, which the schema already documents, and adds no format or matching semantics (e.g. partial vs exact matching for logradouro). The limite and somente_ativas parameters are unexplained in both the schema and the 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 and resource: establishments (headquarters and branches) registered at a given CEP, plus the optional narrowing filters. It is clearly distinguishable from a generic filter search such as buscar_empresas_por_filtro, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 second sentence gives a real use case (finding shell companies or corporate groups sharing an address), which implies when the tool is valuable. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives like consultar_cnpj or buscar_empresas_por_filtro.

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