consultar_certidao_fgts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavioral trait: the tool provides guidance and a URL, not a direct certificate retrieval. However, it lacks details on the response format, any required authentication, or the nature of the automation alternatives.

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 is a single sentence that conveys the essential information without any wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 tool has an output schema, the description need not detail return values. However, the description is brief and leaves out important context such as what the guidance looks like (e.g., text, structured response) or whether it validates the CNPJ. For a simple guidance tool, it is minimally adequate.

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% (the sole parameter 'cnpj' is well-documented). The tool description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema, so baseline 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 states the tool's purpose: to orient about consulting the Certidão de Regularidade do FGTS (CRF) for a CNPJ. It specifies the resource (CRF) and verb (orienta), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'consultar_certidao_federal' which likely perform direct queries.

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 usage context (when you need guidance on CRF for a CNPJ) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the many consultation tools, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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