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 effectively communicates this is a search/read operation (not destructive), mentions the 3-character minimum requirement for the nome parameter, and specifies default behavior (limite defaults to 50). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior for large result sets.

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 perfectly structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, parameters), each containing only essential information. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the core function, the second provides use cases, and the third explains parameters concisely. 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?

For a search tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about purpose, usage, and parameters. The main gap is the lack of information about return format (what fields are included in results, structure of response). However, given the tool's relative simplicity and excellent parameter documentation, it's mostly complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by grouping parameters in a dedicated section, clarifying that 'nome' is a search term with minimum length, 'uf' is optional state filtering, and 'limite' has a default value of 50. This organization helps the agent understand parameter relationships beyond what the schema provides individually.

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 pelo NOME (razao social ou nome fantasia)' - it specifies the verb (busca/search), resource (empresas/companies), and scope (by name including both legal and trade names). It distinguishes from siblings like buscar_por_cnpj, buscar_por_cep, and buscar_avancado by focusing specifically on name-based 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 description includes an explicit 'QUANDO USAR' section with two clear use cases: when you know the name but not the CNPJ, and when you want to find all units of a network. This provides specific guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like buscar_empresa (likely for CNPJ-based lookup) or buscar_avancado (likely for more complex queries).

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