compras_perfil_fornecedor_completo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly describes the tool's behavior: parallel composition from four sources, each with details about what data they return (e.g., razão social, CNAE, QSA, etc.). It explicitly states what is excluded (contracts) and why, discloses dependencies (API key, potential WAF blocks), and mentions a 10-minute cache. This is comprehensive behavioral transparency for a complex data integration tool.

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 well-structured with clear sections and bullet points. Each sentence adds value: the main purpose, component breakdown, exclusion rationale, dependency notes, and cache. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the explanation about contract exclusion is somewhat lengthy (three sentences) and could be slightly condensed without losing clarity. Overall, it is efficient but not perfectly concise.

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 complexity (four parallel data sources, dependencies, and an output schema), the description is complete. It covers what it does, what it includes/excludes, how each source works, dependencies, and caching. Since an output schema exists, it need not describe return values. The description also references a sibling tool for an alternative use case. There are no gaps in context for an agent to correctly invoke this tool.

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 single parameter 'cnpj' has schema coverage of 100%, with a description in the schema. The tool description adds context by reaffirming the format '14 dígitos, com ou sem pontuação' and explaining how the CNPJ is used to consolidate data from multiple sources. This adds meaning beyond the schema, showing the parameter's role in the broader tool purpose. However, the schema already provides format details, so the added value is moderate.

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 explicitly states 'Perfil consolidado do fornecedor' and lists four specific data sources (cadastro, receita_federal, sanções, impedimentos). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining what is NOT included ('Não inclui lista de contratos') and why, referencing specific endpoints and alternative tools. The verb-phrase 'compras_perfil_fornecedor_completo' is clearly described as a consolidated profile, and the inclusion of exclusions differentiates it from contract-related siblings.

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 provides explicit guidance on when not to use it (if contracts are needed, use 'compras_contratos_listar' with specific parameters). It also mentions dependencies like 'TRANSPARENCIA_API_KEY' and potential blocking by WAF. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools that provide only partial profiles (e.g., compras_fornecedor_consultar, compras_fornecedor_cnpj_receita), leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over simpler alternatives. A clearer statement of 'use this when you need the full profile; use the simpler tools for just basic data' would improve it, but the existing guidance is strong.

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