analyze_cnpj_compliance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully shoulders the burden. It transparently describes the tool's behavior: combining multiple data sources into a report with score, risk, and actionable findings. It does not mention side effects, but the nature (analysis/report) implies it is read-only.

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?

The description consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence packs essential information (what it does, what it includes, output elements) and the second provides a clear use case. No wasted words.

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?

Given the single parameter and existence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose, inputs, and outputs. It covers the core intent and use case. It could mention data freshness or interpretation details, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema covers 100% of the single parameter (cnpj) with a clear description of format. The tool description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly specifies a verb (analisar) and resource (compliance fiscal de CNPJ), details the combined data sources (cadastral, Simples Nacional, MEI, CNAE), and describes outputs (score, risk, findings). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like consultar_cnpj and consultar_simples_nacional by offering a consolidated report.

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 explicitly states the use case: 'Use para decisão de contratar/recusar/investigar uma empresa em uma chamada.' This provides clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it lacks explicit instructions on when not to use it or alternatives.

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