totvs_contato

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

Annotations already declare it as readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by specifying the specific fields returned (nome, email, telefone, empresa/customerCode, cargo), which provides beyond-annotation context. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences: first summarizing the data, second giving the endpoint. It is front-loaded with key information and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

With no parameters, annotations covering safety, and an output schema present, the description sufficiently explains the return fields. It could mention potential conditions or errors, but the output schema likely covers structure. Overall complete for a read-only contact info 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?

The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage. The description adds no parameter information, but for a no-parameter tool, baseline is 4 as per guidelines.

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 that the tool returns the logged-in contact's data (name, email, phone, company, role) and provides the endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings like totvs_whoami by specifying the fields returned and the context of the logged-in contact.

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 does not explicitly provide when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes what it returns. While it is a simple zero-parameter tool, guidance on when to prefer it over similar tools like totvs_whoami is lacking.

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