compras_fornecedor_consultar

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the exact Dados Abertos endpoint path and the 1-hour cache. No contradictions with 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: main action first, then endpoint, return fields, and cache behavior. Every line adds information and there is no redundant filler.

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?

With a single required parameter, a full output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete for a simple lookup tool. It captures the endpoint, cache TTL, and output contents; the only notable gap is explicit routing among the many supplier-related sibling tools.

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 specifies that cnpj_cpf is a CNPJ (14 digits) or CPF (11 digits), with or without punctuation. The description only restates 'CNPJ ou CPF' and adds no new semantic detail about format, validation, or edge cases.

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 states a specific action ('Consulta cadastro de um fornecedor pelo CNPJ ou CPF'), identifies the resource (supplier registration), and lists the returned fields (razão social, CNAE, porte, natureza jurídica). It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling supplier tools such as compras_fornecedor_cnpj_receita or compras_perfil_fornecedor_completo.

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 intended use is implied by the stated lookup by CNPJ/CPF and the listed return fields, giving an agent some context for selection. However, the description does not name any alternative tools, state when-not-to-use it, or clarify how it differs from the other supplier-lookup siblings.

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