iHelpU Seminovos — iPhones usados no RS

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the description is free to add scope: results are limited to currently available listings in the iHelpU marketplace in RS. It also discloses the result shape (price, condition, battery, warranty, store, purchase link), which matters because there is no output schema.

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 sentences: the first covers what is searched and where, the second covers filters and return fields. No filler, and the identifying scope (marketplace, RS, available now) is front-loaded.

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?

All parameters are optional and fully documented in the schema, and the missing output schema is compensated by the one-line description of returned fields. Minor gaps remain: no mention of behavior when nothing matches, and the default result count is only in the schema.

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 six parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description restates five of the six filters (omitting limite) without adding syntax or semantics beyond what the schema gives, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: searches used/semi-new iPhones (and other Apple) currently available on the iHelpU marketplace in RS. The list-and-filter nature plus the enumerated return fields separates it in spirit from detalhes_aparelho and preco_iphone_usado, but no sibling is named 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 by 'disponíveis agora' and the filter list, so an agent can infer this is the browse/discovery entry point. However, there is no explicit 'use this when... instead of detalhes_aparelho / preco_iphone_usado' routing, and no statement of when the tool is the wrong choice.

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 and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the content domain (what rules exist) but says nothing about the form of the answer — whether it returns a single text block, per-topic sections, or how the trade-in ('Troca Certa') rules are structured. Useful but not rich.

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 a colon introducing the topic list; the domain ('marketplace iHelpU') comes first and every clause carries content an agent can match a user question against. No filler.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema informational tool, the description sufficiently covers what subject matter is available. The only gap is that it does not indicate how the content is returned or whether it is exhaustive across those topics.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies the tool is a no-argument, topic-scoped lookup.

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 names the resource precisely: purchase rules for the iHelpU marketplace, enumerating the covered topics (pickup in stores, deadlines, warranty, payment, trade-in, service area). It is not a verb-driven action but the informational scope is unambiguous. Sibling tools (buscar_iphones, detalhes_aparelho, lojas_ihelpu, preco_iphone_usado) are about concrete objects/prices, so the topical separation is largely implicit rather than stated.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for process/policy questions and not for phone listings or prices. There is no explicit 'use this when...' clause and no routing away from lojas_ihelpu, which also covers store-related information and is the most likely confusion point.

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 openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the provenance of the id from the store URL, but says nothing about the returned data ('ficha' is only hinted at) or error behavior for invalid ids, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 with the resource and verb first, followed by the practical id hint. No wasted text, though the phrasing is slightly dense.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description could say what a 'ficha' contains (fields returned) to let the agent know what to expect.

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% and the schema already defines id as a UUID. The description adds genuine value by telling the agent where the id is found (end of the /loja/produto/<id> URL), which the schema does not.

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 action and resource: fetch the 'ficha' (record/sheet) of an iHelpU marketplace device by id. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like buscar_iphones (search) and preco_iphone_usado (price lookup), though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 parenthetical explaining that the id comes from the end of the /loja/produto/<id> URL gives useful context on when/how to obtain the input. However, it never states when to use this instead of buscar_iphones or preco_iphone_usado, so routing must be inferred.

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 and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing the shape of the result (fixed set of 9 stores with address, phone, hours, Maps link), which tells the agent this is a small static lookup rather than a paginated query.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the scope constraint (9 stores, RS) front-loaded before the optional filter. Every clause carries information.

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, single optional-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers what it does and what comes back, which is close to sufficient. The only missing piece is the expected form of the city value.

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 0%, so the description must carry the single parameter — and it does state that "cidade" filters the list and is optional. However, it gives no format expectations (exact city name, accents, case sensitivity), so an agent cannot be sure how to phrase the value.

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?

Specific verb ("Lista") plus resource ("as 9 lojas físicas iHelpU no Rio Grande do Sul"), and it enumerates the returned fields (endereço, telefone, horário, link do Google Maps). The resource is unmistakably distinct from the phone/price siblings, so no agent could route to this tool by mistake.

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?

"Opcionalmente filtra por cidade" implies the two usage modes (full list vs. city-filtered), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or exclusion. Because the siblings are unrelated (phones, purchase info, prices), the absence of alternative-routing guidance is a smaller gap, leaving usage only implied.

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 cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the statistic is computed from current stock plus sales in the last 90 days, and combinations with fewer than 3 devices are excluded. That explains why a query may yield no result — valuable context beyond structured fields.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the output (median price and range) before the methodology. Every clause earns its place, though the parenthetical threshold could be tightened.

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?

No output schema, so the description correctly names what is returned (median + range), but leaves units/currency, output shape, and the no-data case implicit. Combined with zero parameter documentation, an agent can pick this tool but not confidently call it.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. 'Por modelo e capacidade' maps to the two parameters but gives no format, allowed values, or examples (e.g. 'iPhone 13' vs '13', '128GB' vs '128'), so an agent cannot reliably format a call from this text.

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 resource and computation: median price and price range for used iPhones segmented by model and capacity. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never names how it differs from siblings like detalhes_aparelho or buscar_iphones, which plausibly also expose pricing.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no alternative tool is referenced. The agent must infer from the returned metric (a market reference, not a listing) that this differs from search/detail siblings, which is a real risk given the sibling set.

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