Softoteca

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that: it discloses that each result includes the categories in common and that results are sorted by descending shared-category count, which the annotations cannot convey.

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 first states what is returned and how it is ordered, the second states when to use it. Nothing is redundant and the core behavior 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?

For a read-only, non-open-world listing tool with a fully documented two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, and result ordering well. It could be slightly more complete by noting that pagination limits results to 20 per page in prose, but the schema already carries that.

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% and both parameters are documented there (slug format/source, pagina with 20-per-page semantics). The description adds no parameter-level detail such as slug format or pagination interaction, so the baseline 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?

Specific verb+resource: it lists other catalog software published in the same categories as a given software, and even states the ordering rule (most shared categories first). It is clearly distinct in intent from comparar_softwares and obter_ficha, though it never names a sibling explicitly, which is what separates a 4 from a 5.

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 second sentence gives an explicit trigger: use it when the user asks for alternatives, competitors, or substitutes for a software. That is clear context for invocation, but there are no exclusions and no routing to alternative tools for adjacent needs.

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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: a hard result cap ('até 20 softwares por chamada'), a deterministic ordering ('ordem alfabética'), and the shape of each returned item. It omits total-match counts and any rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage trigger, then filters, then return shape, then the sibling redirect — a clean information hierarchy. It is somewhat dense in a single flowing block, but every sentence carries distinct payload and nothing is repeated.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (resumo factual, fornecedor, categorias, menor preço publicado, url_canonica) plus the pagination cap and ordering. Combined with the schema-documented filters and the safety annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, and the schema already documents every filter including the enum values and the accent/case-insensitive matching rule. The description only restates the filter categories (categoria, tipo, plataforma, preço máximo) and the 20-per-page size, adding no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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 softwares no catálogo publicado da Softoteca') and scopes it (catálogo brasileiro B2B/B2C, preços em reais). It also names the sibling boundary explicitly, pointing to obter_ficha for per-item detail, so an agent can separate it from alternatives without reading either 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use quando a pessoa pedir indicação, lista ou opções de software para uma necessidade') with concrete examples ('controle de ponto', 'ERP', 'emissão de nota fiscal'), and routes the detail-seeking case to obter_ficha. When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both covered.

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 and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the output is a comparison table and each value carries its origin/source, and only 2-4 items are accepted — useful expectations for a read tool with 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 tight sentences with no filler: the capability and its scope come first, the when-to-use cue second. Nothing repeats the title or wastes space.

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 a 1-param schema and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, invocation intent and return shape (table plus provenance). Minor omissions remain, such as behavior with unknown or duplicate slugs, but nothing essential 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% and the single parameter already documents the 2-4 slug constraint and its origin (buscar_softwares). The description restates the 2-4 range but adds no new syntax, format or edge-case meaning, so the baseline 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 (compara) and resource (2 a 4 softwares do catálogo) and enumerates exactly what the comparison returns: preço, campos da ficha, integrações, conformidade, com origem e fonte. This clearly separates it from single-record siblings like obter_ficha or search-oriented buscar_softwares.

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?

"Use quando a pessoa quiser saber a diferença entre softwares ou escolher entre eles" gives an explicit triggering intent. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., use obter_ficha for one software) or stating when-not, so it is clear context without explicit routing.

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 destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine extra context beyond that: only categories with published software are returned and the result carries slug/tipo/count. It omits any ordering, pagination or size limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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: the first covers what is returned, the second covers when to use it. Purpose is front-loaded ahead of the routing guidance, and there is no redundant restatement of the title.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and the filtering constraint, which an agent needs to interpret results. Only ordering and pagination behavior are unmentioned, a minor gap for a small read-only catalog list.

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 single 'tipo' parameter has 100% schema description coverage including the B2B/B2C semantics and the dual-listing rule, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates 'tipo (B2B ou B2C)' and does not add filtering syntax or behavior for the parameter, matching the baseline 3.

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 do catálogo') with the exact scope ('que têm software publicado') and the fields returned (slug, tipo, contagem). It also names the sibling it feeds into ('buscar_softwares'), so an agent can differentiate it from the other list/search tools without opening schemas.

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?

Gives two explicit use cases: retrieve the correct slug before calling buscar_softwares with a category filter, or show catalog coverage. The alternative tool and the condition that selects this one are named directly.

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, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the structure of the returned data and imposing an attribution obligation ('Cite a url_canonica e a fonte_url de cada dado'), which is real behavioral context. It does not discuss failure modes for an unknown slug, so not a 5.

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 front-loads what the tool returns, the second covers when to use it plus the citation rule. Every clause is informative, though the field enumeration is dense and the citation instruction is slightly buried at the end.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns and does so thoroughly, listing each category of data included. Combined with the precondition on buscar_softwares and the slug source, an agent has everything needed to call and use it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% – the schema already explains that the slug comes from search or the softoteca.com.br/software/{slug} URL. The description merely echoes that the slug must be known, adding no syntax, format, or validation detail. Baseline 3.

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 ('Devolve a ficha técnica completa de um software do catálogo') and enumerates the exact payload (campos com origem e URL, planos e preços, integrações, conformidade, fornecedor, categorias). It also names the sibling it follows (buscar_softwares), so an agent can separate it from comparar_softwares or alternativas without opening a 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?

Gives explicit sequencing ('Use depois de buscar_softwares, ou quando a pessoa citar um software e o slug for conhecido'), which tells the agent the precondition and the trigger condition. No when-not guidance or contrast with comparar_softwares/alternativas, so it stops short of full routing coverage.

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