Limite de crédito do cliente

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. However, it only states that the tool returns a list or a specific client, with no disclosure of read-only behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or other side effects. For a query tool, this is minimal.

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 sentence that conveys the essential behavior. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and condition. Minor improvement could be splitting into two sentences for clarity.

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 query tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains the list vs specific behavior but does not cover pagination, sorting, or return format. The schema descriptions fill some gaps, but overall completeness is adequate but could be improved.

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 covers 100% of parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Número da página (opcional)'), so the description adds no additional semantic meaning. Baseline score of 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 verb 'Consulta' (consult) and the resource 'limite de crédito dos clientes' (client credit limit). It also distinguishes the behavior based on whether internalId is provided (list vs specific client), which differentiates it from sibling tools like protheus_saldo_cliente and protheus_condicoes_pagamento.

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 querying client credit limits, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like protheus_saldo_cliente or protheus_clientes_por_vendedor. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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