Lookup Brazilian company (basic)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided. Description adds cost ($0.01) and indicates it's a read operation ('Consolidated registry profile'). Does not disclose potential rate limits, authentication needs, or response size. Adds some value beyond structural fields but could be more transparent.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys purpose, returned fields, and cost. No wasted words, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points).

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 1 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately lists the returned fields (legal name, status, activities, address, incorporation date). Lacks details on error handling or data freshness, but sufficient for a basic lookup.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the cnpj parameter. The tool description redundantly mentions 'by CNPJ', adding no new semantics over the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool consolidates official registry profile of a Brazilian company by CNPJ, listing key fields (legal name, status, activities, address, incorporation date). This distinguishes it from siblings like lookup_company_full (likely more detailed) and screen_company_risk.

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?

Implies usage through the word 'basic', suggesting a quick profile lookup, and mentions a cost ($0.01). However, no explicit when-not or alternative tools are named, despite having related siblings like search_companies or lookup_company_full.

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