get_dados_discente

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not state that this is a read-only lookup, that it takes zero parameters (and therefore presumably returns data for the authenticated student rather than an arbitrary one), or whether it requires login. The parenthetical field list largely duplicates what the output schema already declares.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a tight parenthetical enumeration; no filler. The only weakness is that the enumeration is dense and does not signal priority or what the primary identifier (matrícula) means in context.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return values need not be re-explained, and a zero-parameter signature is simple. However, the crucial ambiguity — whose student record is returned, given no identifying argument — is left unaddressed, which is exactly the kind of context a description must supply here.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the argument level, and it correctly does not invent parameter talk.

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 names the resource (institutional student data) and enumerates the specific contents: matrícula, curso, status, CRA, carga horária pendente, % integralizado. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_notas or get_turmas, which cover grades and class sections. It loses a point only because it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closest siblings (e.g., get_situacao_notas).

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 call this tool versus the many siblings in the family. An agent must infer from the field list that this is the profile/overview call, but nothing states that, nor are there any exclusions or preconditions.

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