vereditos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that differences are never silent ('Uma diferença nunca é um gap silencioso') and that each verdict is explained, which is useful. However, it does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what data it reads, or any side effects. The behavioral transparency is partial, so a 2 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence that leads with the core purpose. It is concise and contains no redundant filler. The poetic phrasing 'Uma diferença nunca é um gap silencioso' adds a unique behavioral note without lengthening much. It's well-structured for a one-sentence definition.

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?

Given that the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description reasonably explains what the tool does and the nature of its output (counts and explanations). However, it lacks explicit context about when to invoke it in a workflow and how it relates to the sibling tools. For a zero-param tool, it's adequate but not complete – an agent might not know if this is the right tool for a given task.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There is no parameter information to add, and the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps. The input schema is empty, so the description naturally covers all parameter aspects. No deductions are necessary.

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 a specific action – three-way reconciliation (pedido × autorização × chain) with a count by named verdict and explanation of each. This is more specific than a generic 'verdicts' name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like status_do_livro or fiscal, so it's clear but not fully distinguished.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or context in which this reconciliation should be performed. The phrase 'feita AGORA' suggests immediacy but not a specific usage condition. The description completely lacks usage direction.

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