info_base

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. 'Mostra' implies a passive read, but nothing states freshness, caching, whether it triggers a data load, or permissions. For a zero-annotation tool the disclosure is thin.

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 listing three return facts with no filler. Efficient, though the phrasing is slightly tangled.

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 is the only source of information, and it only partially specifies the return shape (month, location, row count). It omits any explanation of what 'consultados' means or what triggers the data set.

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 tool takes no parameters (0 required, 0 optional), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 states the tool reveals metadata about loaded Receita files: which month, where they are, and how many rows. That is a concrete output description, but the resource is ambiguous ('arquivos consultados' – which files, from which dataset?) and it offers no differentiation from the ten sibling tools.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this tool, what precedes it, or how it relates to alternatives like consultar_cnpj or buscar_empresas_por_filtro. Usage must be entirely inferred.

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