descontosml

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly conveys this is a read-only listing operation ('Lista') and discloses the returned fields plus that the coupon appears only 'quando existe'. It doesn't disclose sorting behavior, pagination/limite semantics, or empty-result handling, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 with zero filler. The first front-loads the action and return fields; the second gives concrete usage examples. Every sentence earns its place and the key information appears first.

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?

Fairly complete for a search/listing tool: the schema covers all parameters, the description covers return fields and typical queries, and the optional-coupon condition is disclosed. Minor gaps — sorting order and empty-result behavior — don't block correct invocation.

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 input schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing desconto_minimo through the 'promoções acima de 50%' example, but otherwise doesn't extend parameter meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3 for high coverage 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?

States a specific verb (lista) and resource (produtos em promoção no Mercado Livre Brasil), and enumerates the returned fields (preço atual, preço de tabela, percentual de desconto, cupom). The example queries clarify its intent and implicitly differentiate it from siblings melhor_cupom (coupons) and quedas_de_preco (price drops), though the siblings are not 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?

Provides concrete trigger examples ('o que está barato em eletrônicos', 'promoções acima de 50% de desconto') that tell an agent when to invoke. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name the alternative tools and their selection conditions — the differentiation from melhor_cupom and quedas_de_preco is left to inference.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains what the tool returns (coupon, savings, verifiable/conditional status) and adds a critical caveat that conditional coupons must not be presented as guaranteed discounts. This goes beyond a basic summary, though it does not mention side effects or failure modes.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core function and output, and the second sentence adds an essential semantic warning about conditional coupons. Every sentence 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?

For a low-complexity tool with one fully documented parameter, the description covers the return values and the key caveat about conditional discounts. It lacks a comparison to sibling tools and detailed output structure, but nothing critical is missing for correct basic invocation.

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 describes the single parameter 'produto' fully (URL or MLB id), and the tool description only repeats that same information. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the baseline.

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 action ('devolve o cupom') and resource ('melhor cupom para um produto'), and clearly defines the input format (link or MLB id). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the function is unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus buscar_promocoes or quedas_de_preco. The intended use is implied by the input and output, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use instruction.

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?

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for transparency. It describes the action of listing price drops but does not mention any limitations (e.g., date range, data sources) or side effects, though the read-only nature is implicit. The mention of 'including those that reached the lowest price ever recorded' adds some specificity but lacks deeper behavioral detail.

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 concise sentence, directly stating the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and easy to parse, containing all essential 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?

The description provides sufficient context to understand the tool's purpose and how to invoke it, including the parameter. It does not describe the output format, but since no output schema is specified, this is acceptable. The description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool 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?

The parameter 'limite' is fully described in the schema (quantas quedas retornar, 1-50, default 10). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter semantics are clear without further elaboration.

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 lists products with significant price drops, including those reaching all-time lows. It distinguishes from sibling tools like promotions and coupons by focusing on price drops, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for price-drop queries, and the presence of sibling tools (buscar_promocoes, melhor_cupom) provides context for when this tool may be appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, 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.