consultar_status_mei

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

The description discloses the tool is a read-only query that returns specific status fields. However, it lacks details on error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits, which are unmitigated due to missing annotations.

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 with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core function; the second elaborates on return data. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

For a simple query tool with one parameter and a clear output schema (implied), the description covers the necessary information: what it does, what it returns. Minor omission: no mention of potential errors or timeouts, but overall 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% for the single parameter 'cnpj', with a clear format explanation. The description adds context by linking the parameter to the query, but no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 consults the status of MEI and Simples Nacional for a given CNPJ via BrasilAPI, specifying the return fields (optant status and dates). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'consultar_simples_nacional' which may only query one aspect.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'consultar_simples_nacional' or 'consultar_cnpj', nor does it mention conditions like prerequisites or limitations.

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