socios_em_comum

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. It discloses the matching logic (same name + same masked document) and that results are limited to partners appearing in more than one company. However, it doesn't mention performance limits (max 50 CNPJs), whether results are paginated, or what the output includes beyond partner identities.

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 sentence that front-loads the core operation and adds the key matching criterion without waste. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 two-parameter analytical tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the cross-referencing logic and matching criterion. Minor gaps remain around output format and performance constraints, but nothing critical for correct invocation 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 100%, with both parameters fully described including formats and default values. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (cruza) and resource (quadro societário de várias empresas) and precisely what it returns: sócios appearing in more than one company. This is distinguishable from siblings like buscar_socio or empresas_do_socio, which operate on a single entity.

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 a multi-company comparison scenario and clarifies the matching criterion (same name and same masked document), which is useful context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the cross-referencing purpose is clear.

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