list_companies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description's "Browse" wording is consistent with a read operation. However, it fails to disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: the status parameter defaults to 'ATIVO', so results are silently restricted to active companies unless overridden. That default-narrowing behavior is exactly the kind of context the description should surface.

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 compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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?

An output schema and full schema descriptions exist, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the core call is safe to make. Still missing are routing guidance against the many sibling company tools and any mention of the default ATIVO status filter or paging semantics, which matter for a registry-browsing tool in a crowded toolset.

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 100%, so all four parameters (limit, offset, sector, status) are documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description mentions only the sector filter and omits status entirely, which slightly misrepresents the filtering surface but does not contradict the schema.

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 ("Browse") and resource ("CVM company registry"), so the agent knows it is a listing tool over companies. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like search_company or resolve, which also return companies, leaving ambiguity about which one to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says whether to use this instead of search_company (name-based lookup) or resolve (identifier resolution). The only hint is "optionally filtered by sector", which is a capability, not a usage rule.

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