Saldo em estoque (MRP)

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses behavior for two scenarios (list vs. specific record) and warns that the database may be empty. This is sufficient for a read-only query tool.

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 plus a short note, all essential. No redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic usage and a possible state (empty DB). It lacks integration of pagination and field selection details, but schema covers those.

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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining how parameters affect output (e.g., branchId+code returns specific record), though it does not elaborate on pagination or ordering beyond schema.

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 'Consulta os saldos em estoque do MRP' which is a specific verb (consult/saldo) and resource (estoque MRP). It also distinguishes between list vs. specific record, and sibling tools have distinct domains (client balance, credit limits, etc.).

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?

While the description explains behavior with and without ID, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Context from sibling names implies distinct purposes, but no direct comparison is given.

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