MCP CNPJ Intelligence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully communicates the batch operation nature and includes a critical 'LIMITES' (limits) section specifying the maximum of 100 CNPJs per request. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or what format the results will be returned in.

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 extremely well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, limits) and uses bullet points for readability. Every sentence earns its place - the first establishes purpose, the second provides usage context, and the third sets critical constraints. No wasted words.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides excellent context about when to use it and operational limits. However, it doesn't describe what information will be returned about each CNPJ or the response format, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.

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 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by reinforcing the parameter semantics in the 'LIMITES' section, explicitly stating the maximum of 100 CNPJs per request, which provides important usage context beyond the schema's basic parameter documentation.

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 with a specific verb ('Consulta' - query/lookup) and resource ('MULTIPLOS CNPJs' - multiple CNPJs), distinguishing it from sibling tools that appear to query single entities or use different search criteria. The batch/lot nature is explicitly mentioned, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit 'QUANDO USAR' (when to use) guidelines with two specific scenarios: having a list of CNPJs to enrich and importing data from spreadsheets/CRM. This provides clear context for when this batch tool is appropriate versus the many single-entity search sibling tools.

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