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 describes what the tool returns (sectors with most companies in ranking format) and mentions a default parameter value, but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the ranking data takes. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps.

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 for a single-parameter tool and front-loads the core purpose. The Portuguese formatting with clear section headers makes it easy to parse.

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 single-parameter read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but doesn't describe the return format, potential limitations, or how the ranking is calculated. Given the tool's relative simplicity and good parameter documentation, it's minimally viable but could benefit from more behavioral context.

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?

The description includes a 'PARAMETROS' section that explains the 'limite' parameter as 'Top N CNAEs (padrao: 20)' which adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's 'Quantidade de CNAEs no ranking (padrao: 20)'. The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description's framing of the parameter as 'Top N CNAEs' provides additional context about how the parameter affects the ranking output.

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: 'Retorna SETORES com mais empresas (ranking de CNAEs)' which translates to 'Returns SECTORS with most companies (CNAE ranking)'. This specifies the verb (returns), resource (sectors/companies), and scope (CNAE ranking). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ranking_cnae' which appears to be a similar tool.

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 a 'QUANDO USAR' section with two clear use cases: 'Identificando mercados maiores' (identifying larger markets) and 'Analise de oportunidade por vertical' (opportunity analysis by vertical). This provides good contextual guidance, though it doesn't specify when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives like the 'ranking_cnae' sibling tool.

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