MCP CNPJ Intelligence

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 discloses behavioral traits: the tool returns comparative data (company data, sector statistics, relative ranking position) as outlined in the 'RETORNA' section. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness, which would be helpful for a tool with no 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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, returns) and front-loaded key information. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the purpose, the second and third specify when to use, and the last three detail what is returned. There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and return values, which is sufficient for a comparative analysis tool. However, without annotations or an output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., error handling or data sources) to be fully comprehensive.

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%, with both parameters ('cnpj' and 'uf') documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'uf' affects sector filtering or CNPJ format). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra semantic details.

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: 'Compara empresa com a MEDIA DO SETOR' (Compare company with SECTOR AVERAGE). It specifies the verb 'compara' (compare) and the resource 'empresa' (company) against 'media do setor' (sector average), distinguishing it from siblings like 'buscar_empresa' (search company) or 'estatisticas_por_cnae' (statistics by CNAE).

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 includes a dedicated 'QUANDO USAR' (WHEN TO USE) section with explicit guidelines: 'Quer saber se empresa esta acima ou abaixo da media' (Want to know if company is above or below average) and 'Analise comparativa de porte/capital' (Comparative analysis of size/capital). This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'empresa_completa' (complete company) or 'estatisticas_por_cnae' (statistics by CNAE).

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