calendario_safra

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: 'Sem chamadas de rede; resposta instantânea' (no network calls, instant response). However, it does not describe behavior for invalid inputs, missing data, or how the output is structured beyond what is implied by the schema. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence is informative: the first defines the action and source, the second clarifies data nature (static, instant). No unnecessary words. Highly concise.

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 tool is simple with only two parameters, both well-described in the schema. The description covers core functionality and data source. However, it lacks usage guidelines and deeper behavioral context (e.g., error handling, output format). Given the schema and output schema exist, the description is minimally complete but could be more helpful.

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 provides rich parameter details (e.g., accepted crop names, aliases, region formats). The description adds only 'Dado estático curado a partir do CONAB' which reinforces data source but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Consulta o calendário de plantio e colheita de uma cultura por região (CONAB).' It specifies the verb (consulta), resource (calendário), and scope (by crop and region). Compared to sibling tools like cotacao_soja or noticias_agro, it is well differentiated as a calendar lookup tool.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that data is static and instant, but does not specify context where other tools (e.g., cotacao_* for pricing) would be more appropriate. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are given.

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