consultar_empresas_lote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses batch behavior, return of compliance + risk score, and error handling per CNPJ, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects. For a read-only query, this is sufficient.

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 covering action, output, use case, and error handling with no filler. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 existence (not shown here but indicated), the description need not detail return values. It provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly among siblings, with clear parameters and behavior.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, but it does frame overall usage. Parameters are well-documented in 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?

The description clearly states the tool performs batch queries of multiple CNPJs, returning a compliance summary and risk score per company, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like consultar_cnpj (single CNPJ) and risk_score_supplier (likely individual).

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 indicates it is useful for rapid screening of supplier portfolios, implying a batch use case. It does not explicitly exclude single-lookup scenarios or list alternatives, but the context from sibling tools provides adequate guidance.

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