MCP CNPJ Intelligence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool performs searches and lists available filters, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be needed, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what format results are returned in. The description provides basic functionality but lacks operational context.

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, available filters) and uses bullet points effectively. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 search tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage context but lacks important behavioral information. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally explain what kind of results are returned, any limitations, or operational considerations. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps in completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and one enum. The description lists the available filters but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for 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 performs a search with multiple combined filters, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from simpler search tools by emphasizing 'MULTIPLOS FILTROS combinados' and complex queries. However, it doesn't explicitly name which sibling tools it's different from.

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 'QUANDO USAR' section provides clear context: use when needing filters other tools don't offer and for complex multi-criteria queries. This gives good guidance on when this tool is appropriate versus simpler alternatives. It doesn't explicitly name specific sibling tools to avoid or provide exclusion criteria.

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