SI5 Global

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: typo tolerance (fuzzy matching) and the shape of the result (up to 10 products with barcode, brand, NCM and link), which an agent needs to interpret results. It stops short of explaining ranking or truncation behavior when more than 10 matches exist.

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 the resource and search mode front-loaded and the return payload second. No filler, no restatement of the tool title, and 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by listing the returned fields and result cap, so an agent knows what to expect. Annotations cover the read-only profile. The only missing piece is behavior on empty or capped result sets, which is minor.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by enumerating what "texto" may contain (nome, marca, tipo de produto) — a real semantic addition for a fuzzy search field. "Devolve até 10" also publicly states the cap that the schema encodes as limite maximum=10.

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 ("Busca produtos no catálogo SI5 Global") plus the matching mode ("texto livre ... tolerando erro de digitação"), which implicitly separates it from the code/NCM lookup siblings. It never names those siblings, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

"por texto livre (nome, marca, tipo de produto)" implies you should reach for this tool when you have descriptive text rather than an identifier, which contrasts with consultar_codigo_barras and consultar_ncm. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no named alternative, and no guidance on what to do when the search returns nothing.

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 and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes further by enumerating the returned payload (nome, marca, categoria, NCM, CEST, país, foto, link), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema. It omits failure behavior (barcode not found), keeping it from 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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and then the input format and output fields; no filler. The trailing field list makes it slightly dense, but every element 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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by listing return fields and input formats. Only error/not-found handling is unaddressed, a minor gap.

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 real meaning the schema lacks: the accepted GS1 variants and digit lengths (8/12/13/14), clarifying which code formats are valid. That is more than restating the single 'codigo' property.

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 ("Devolve") and resource (produto) and pins down the exact input domain (GS1 GTIN/EAN de 8, 12, 13 ou 14 dígitos), so an agent immediately knows what it retrieves. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling buscar_produtos, so it falls short of 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 usage is strongly implied — you call this when you hold a barcode rather than a name — but the description never states when to prefer it over buscar_produtos or consultar_ncm, and names no exclusions. Implied but not explicit guidance.

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 and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing what is returned: the official description from the current table plus a link to a page of example products — meaningful output context given there is no output schema. It stops short of saying what happens for an invalid or retired code.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the primary output (the official description) and appends the secondary return (example-products link). No filler, no repetition of the schema.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is nearly self-sufficient: it names the source table, the identifier format, and the two things returned. The only gap is behavior on unknown/invalid codes, which is minor for this tool shape.

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 there is exactly one parameter whose format (8 digits, with or without dots) is fully documented in the schema. The description's 'NCM (Nomenclatura Comum do Mercosul, 8 dígitos)' only expands the acronym, adding no syntactic detail beyond the schema, 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 (devolve) and resource (descrição oficial de um código NCM de 8 dígitos) plus the scope of the source table ('tabela vigente'), so the agent knows exactly what lookup is performed. It does not name or contrast the siblings buscar_produtos or consultar_codigo_barras, so the tool is clear in isolation but not explicitly differentiated.

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 the described input contract (an 8-digit NCM code) and the returned content, which makes the intended scenario inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to buscar_produtos for product-level queries or consultar_codigo_barras for barcodes.

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