guard_get_purpose

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds real value: it discloses the auth requirement and that the response includes a draft alongside the published version plus derived "pendências óbvias" warnings, which the agent cannot learn from annotations alone.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the field inventory after; the enumeration is dense but every item describes an actual returned field, so it earns its length.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so thoroughly (fields, versions, draft, derived warnings) while also noting the login prerequisite. A minor gap is the absence of error behavior for an invalid or missing id.

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% and the schema already explains the single id parameter including its origin (guard_list_purposes). The description adds no further meaning about the id beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ("Mostra uma finalidade da conta do Guard") and enumerates the exact fields returned, so an agent can see this is a single-purpose read that yields a formatted detail view, distinct from the list-style sibling guard_list_purposes.

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?

States the prerequisite "Exige guard_login", which is useful routing context. However, it never says when to prefer this over guard_list_purposes or guard_explain, leaving the when-to-use decision to inference.

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