Solicitações de compra (MRP)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the endpoint mapping, environment behavior (DFL returns SOLICITAÇÕES), and that the base may be empty. However, it lacks statements about idempotency, safety, authentication, or rate limits, which would be expected for a read operation.

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 concise (two sentences plus a note) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 no output schema, the description explains the purpose and basic usage adequately. It covers list vs specific retrieval and notes possible empty results. However, lacking details on return format or error handling, but the schema covers parameters well. Overall, it is mostly complete for a simple list tool.

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 descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds integration context by stating that branchId+code together retrieve a specific record, which clarifies their relationship beyond the schema's individual descriptions. This extra meaning justifies a score above baseline 3.

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 lists MRP purchase requisitions (solicitações de compra) and can retrieve a specific one with branchId+code. It also mentions the endpoint name and environment behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools like protheus_produtos_mrp or protheus_pedidos_compra_mrp.

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 basic guidance: 'Sem ID, lista; com branchId+code, uma específica.' This tells when to use for list vs specific retrieval, but it does not exclude when not to use or compare with alternatives among siblings. More explicit context would be helpful.

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