consultar_empresa_completa

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists returned fields but does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, rate limits, or that it's a read-only operation. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and key information, with no wasted words. It is concise and effectively communicates the tool's function.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return format. It lists sufficient fields for understanding. The single input parameter is well-documented. Overall complete for its simplicity.

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 a single parameter well-described in the schema. The description adds context about the tool's purpose but no additional meaning for the parameter beyond the schema. Baseline score applies.

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 verb 'Consulta' and the specific resource 'dados enriquecidos de uma empresa brasileira combinando informações da Receita Federal (CNPJ) e do Simples Nacional'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'consultar_cnpj' and 'consultar_simples_nacional' by offering a combined, enriched result.

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 enriched company data in one call, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives. Given related sibling tools, explicit guidance would improve selection accuracy.

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