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 of behavioral disclosure. The description indicates this is a listing/query tool ('Lista empresas'), which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't explicitly state whether it's safe, whether it requires authentication, or any rate limits. The 'CNAES COMUNS' section provides helpful examples of common CNAE codes, adding practical context, but behavioral traits like pagination, response format, or error handling are not covered.

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, common examples) and uses bullet points for readability. It's appropriately sized at about 50 words, with no redundant information. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the 'QUANDO USAR' insights into the opening sentence for faster scanning.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a solid foundation with purpose, usage guidelines, and examples. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., what the output looks like, error cases) and doesn't fully leverage the context of sibling tools to guide selection. For a listing tool with no annotations or output schema, more completeness on results format would be beneficial.

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%, meaning the input schema already fully documents all three parameters (cnae, uf, limite) with descriptions and examples. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain CNAE code structure or UF filtering logic). With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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: 'Lista empresas de um SETOR especifico (por CNAE)' which translates to 'Lists companies from a specific SECTOR (by CNAE).' This provides a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('empresas') with the key constraint of using CNAE codes. It distinguishes from siblings like 'buscar_por_nome' (search by name) or 'buscar_por_cep' (search by zip code), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sector-related tools like '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 'QUANDO USAR' section provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'Quer todas empresas de uma atividade economica' (when you want all companies in an economic activity) and 'Prospeccao por vertical/segmento' (prospecting by vertical/segment). This gives practical scenarios, but it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., vs. 'buscar_avancado' for advanced search).

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