BrindesBrasil.com.br

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds domain value about what comes back (price with engraving, minimum quantity) but discloses nothing behavioral beyond that, such as result limits or pagination semantics.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and search scope before the return summary. No filler and nothing redundant with the surrounding structured fields.

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?

With no output schema, the description explicitly enumerates the returned fields (title, SKU, link, image, unit price, minimum quantity), which is exactly the missing context an agent needs. Combined with the search scope and annotations, the definition is self-sufficient.

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 67% and 'limite' has no schema description, so the description partly compensates. Crucially it clarifies that the 'busca' string accepts name, type, material OR an SKU, going beyond the schema's example-only documentation.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Busca brindes no catálogo') and the search axis (texto por nome/tipo/material ou SKU), which clearly sets it apart from siblings like detalhes_produto, indicar_similares and listar_categorias. An agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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?

It implies when to use it (free-text or SKU lookup) and is a natural first step before detalhes_produto, but never names alternatives or exclusions explicitly. The only cross-tool hint ('slug vindo de listar_categorias') lives in the parameter schema, not the description.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely useful behavior: it mirrors the cart calculation, respects only enabled shipping methods, groups products into shared boxes, and returns each option with value plus total lead time (production + delivery). It stops short of stating auth needs or rate limits, but goes well beyond the annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by calculation semantics, input modes, and return format in one dense paragraph with little filler. Slightly long, but nearly every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in to describe the return shape (each option's value and total lead time broken into production + delivery), and it covers both input modes and their semantic difference. Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds interpretation rules the schema cannot: the 10-item cap framing, the single-product fallback via produto/quantidade, and crucially that quoting itens as a whole is not equivalent to summing individual quotes. That changes how an agent should structure calls.

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 states a precise verb+resource ('Calcula o frete de um pedido para um CEP brasileiro') and pins down the calculation semantics (same as the store cart, with engraving price and box grouping). This clearly separates it from siblings like calcular_preco, which handle price rather than shipping.

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?

It explains the two accepted input modes (single produto+quantidade vs up to 10 itens) and warns that multi-product freight is the whole order's and differs from summing separate quotes, which tells the agent when to use one shape over the other. It doesn't name a sibling tool as an explicit alternative, so no exclusion language.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts beyond them: pricing uses 'o mesmo motor do site' (consistency with the website) and freight is excluded, but it says nothing about error handling for invalid SKUs or limits.

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?

Two tight sentences: the core computation is front-loaded and the freight exclusion is a short, high-value caveat. Nothing is wasted.

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 3-parameter read-only calculation with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the returned quantities and the scoping caveat. It could be marginally stronger by noting the recordings default/bounds interplay, but nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents produto (SKU/ID), quantidade and aplicacoes including the 0–4 bounds and default. The description only restates that price depends on quantity and recordings, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb (calcula) and concrete outputs (preço unitário e total) scoped to a product, quantity and number of gravações. It implicitly distinguishes itself from calcular_frete by declaring 'Não inclui frete', though it never names the sibling directly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the pricing tool and that shipping must be obtained elsewhere, but there is no explicit 'use this when' or routing to calcular_frete or buscar_produtos.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful return-content detail (what data the tool provides) but does not disclose behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or data freshness.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the returned fields. It is efficient with no wasted words, though the enumeration makes it slightly list-heavy.

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 read-only lookup tool with a fully documented single parameter and no output schema, the description provides a thorough enumeration of the returned data, which is the key missing piece an agent would need. Minor gaps like error behavior or pagination are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema already fully documents the single parameter (SKU or numeric ID) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

The description clearly states it retrieves product details and enumerates the exact fields returned (description, colors, stock, box dimensions, engraving techniques, price table). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like buscar_produtos (search) and calcular_preco (price calculation), though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: the agent should call this to get detailed information about a specific product identified by SKU or ID. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to siblings such as buscar_produtos or calcular_preco, leaving some inference to the agent.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that results mirror the product page ordering, but says nothing about pagination, empty results, or why 'limite' truncates ordering.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states content and ordering with no padding. It is tight, though one clause about the 'produto' input would have earned its place.

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 simple read-only lookup with no output schema, the description conveys what is returned but not its shape, cardinality behavior, or how 'limite' interacts with the page ordering. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 50%: only 'produto' carries a description. The description never mentions either parameter, so the undocumented 'limite' (default 8, max 12) is left to inference, and the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific resource and scope: other colors of the same model plus similar products, returned in the product page's order. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as detalhes_produto or buscar_produtos.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite a crowded sibling set (buscar_produtos, detalhes_produto, calcular_preco). The agent must infer that this is for recommendations rather than search or detail lookup.

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

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, closed-world), so the description only needs to add non-obvious context. It does add the return payload shape, but leaves 'principais' (main) undefined — it is unclear whether secondary categories are excluded — and says nothing about ordering or nesting depth.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler and no redundancy. Every clause (scope plus returned fields) earns its place.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly self-sufficient: it tells the agent this is a no-argument read that returns slugs, links, product counts and subcategories. Minor gaps remain around what 'principais' filters out and whether categories are ordered or nested.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no argument syntax the description could usefully explain; its only relevant contribution is describing the output fields, which it does.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lista as categorias principais do catálogo') and even enumerates the returned fields (slug, link, product count, subcategories), so the agent knows exactly what this tool produces. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, but none of them (buscar_produtos, calcular_frete, calcular_preco, detalhes_produto, indicar_similares) overlap with category listing, so ambiguity risk is low.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as buscar_produtos for narrowing to a specific category's products. The agent is left to infer that this is a catalog-browsing entry point.

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