compras_fornecedor_consultar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions a 1-hour cache and the endpoint, which helps set expectations. However, it does not specify whether the tool is read-only (likely safe) or if there are any idempotency or side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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 concise with three short sentences covering purpose, endpoint, and return data. The first sentence immediately conveys the main action. While the second and third sentences add useful details, the description could potentially be more compact by integrating the endpoint into a single query, but it remains 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers the essential purpose, input format, and cache behavior. However, it lacks guidance on error cases (e.g., invalid CNPJ/CPF), output structure (though output schema exists), and how to handle the response. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

The input schema has one parameter (cnpj_cpf) with full schema description coverage (100%). The description adds context by noting the expected format (14 digits for CNPJ, 11 for CPF, with or without punctuation) and confirms the purpose of the parameter. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3; the description adds enough additional clarity to warrant a 4.

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 purpose: 'Consulta cadastro de um fornecedor pelo CNPJ ou CPF.' It identifies the specific action (consult), the resource (supplier registration), and the input method (CNPJ or CPF). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like compras_fornecedor_listar by specifying a single-query lookup.

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 for querying a single supplier by document number, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compras_fornecedor_listar for multiple suppliers). No exclusions or prerequisites (like required permissions) are mentioned.

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