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. It mentions ranking criteria ('capital' and 'filiais') and default ordering, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, fields). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 structured into clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, ordering) with bullet points, making it easy to scan. It is appropriately sized with no redundant information, though the use of all caps in 'RANKING' and 'QUANDO USAR' is slightly informal.

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 provides basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and error handling. It is adequate for a simple ranking tool but has clear gaps, such as not explaining what data fields are returned or potential limitations.

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 well. The description adds minimal value by mentioning default ordering ('capital: Por capital social (padrao)') and the optional 'filiais' criterion, but does not provide additional context beyond what the schema specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'RANKING das maiores empresas de um setor' (ranking the largest companies in a sector). It specifies the verb (ranking) and resource (largest companies in a sector), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'estatisticas_por_cnae' or 'buscar_por_cnae', which might provide similar sector-based data without ranking.

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 that provides clear contexts for usage: identifying market leaders and Account-Based Marketing (ABM). This offers explicit guidance on when to use the tool, though it does not specify when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools.

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