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 describes the tool's behavior (searching companies by ZIP code with filters) and mentions default values for 'situacao' and 'limite', which adds useful context. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or what happens with invalid inputs.

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, parameters). Each sentence earns its place: the first states the purpose, the 'QUANDO USAR' provides context, and 'PARAMETROS' lists parameters efficiently. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameters well, but lacks details on return values (format, structure), error handling, or system constraints. For a search tool with 4 parameters, this leaves gaps in understanding the full behavior.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description's 'PARAMETROS' section repeats information already in the schema (e.g., 'cep: CEP de 8 digitos' vs schema's 'CEP de 8 digitos (so numeros)'). It adds minimal value beyond the schema, maintaining the baseline of 3.

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: 'Busca empresas por CEP' (Search companies by ZIP code). It specifies the verb ('busca') and resource ('empresas'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'buscar_por_nome' (search by name) or 'buscar_por_cnae' (search by CNAE) by focusing on geographic search.

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 explicitly provides usage scenarios: when wanting companies in a specific region or for geographic prospecting. This clearly distinguishes it from alternatives like 'buscar_empresa' (general company search) or 'buscar_por_nome' (search by name), though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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