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 mentions the minimum character requirement for 'nome' and default value for 'limite', which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens when no results are found.

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) and every sentence earns its place. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and usage guidance but lacks important behavioral context. It doesn't describe the return format, pagination behavior, or error handling. Given the complexity and lack of structured metadata, it should do more to be 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description repeats the same parameter information without adding meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 NOME DE SOCIO' (Search companies by PARTNER NAME). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like 'buscar_empresa' (search company) or 'socios' (partners). The title being null doesn't affect this clarity.

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 two concrete use cases: finding all companies of a businessperson and mapping an investor's portfolio. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'buscar_empresa' or 'socios'.

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