consultar_cnpj

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of explaining behavior. It states it accepts formatted or unformatted CNPJ, which is useful. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling for invalid CNPJs. The read-only nature is implicit but not explicit.

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 two concise sentences front-loading the main action and listing key return fields. No unnecessary words, every sentence adds value.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values but still provides a useful list. It covers acceptance of formatted CNPJ. It could mention handling of different CNPJ types (matriz/filial) or statuses, but it is mostly complete for typical use.

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%, and the schema already documents the CNPJ parameter with formatting options. The description's mention of formatting is redundant. It does add context about the return fields, but that is beyond parameter semantics. Baseline score of 3 for high coverage.

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 it consults complete cadastral data by CNPJ, listing specific return fields (razão social, endereço, CNAE, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'analyze_cnpj_compliance' or 'consultar_empresa_completa', as it focuses on raw cadastral data.

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 when needing complete cadastral data by CNPJ, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to similar tools like 'consultar_empresa_completa' or 'listar_cnpjs_por_nome'. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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