consultar_simples_nacional

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

With no annotations, the description bears responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the output (status, dates) but does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, or error conditions. It is adequate for a simple query tool but lacks full transparency.

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?

Two sentences totaling 20 words, no redundancy. Every word adds value, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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's simplicity (1 param, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and return values. Missing are potential error cases or prerequisites, but these are minor for a straightforward lookup.

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%, so the parameter is well-documented. The description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema's definition of cnpj. 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 function: checking if a company is opted into Simples Nacional or MEI, and lists the specific returned data (situação atual, dates). The verb 'consulta' and specific regime names leave no ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like consultar_status_mei or consultar_cnpj. The description does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions, forcing the agent to infer use cases.

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