buscar_tipos_contato

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It describes a read operation and mentions the output values, but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is adequate for a simple lookup but lacks behavioral depth.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and a bullet point. It states the main purpose and the primary use case without any filler. Every part adds value.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core use case well. However, it could mention that results are paginated or list-like, but for a basic lookup it's nearly complete.

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 description coverage is 0%; the only parameter 'pagina' is not mentioned in the description. The description focuses solely on the output mapping (TypeId) and ignores the pagination parameter. With zero coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent unsure about how to use the parameter.

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 retrieves contact types ('Buscar tipos de contato') and specifies the exact use case: obtaining TypeId when creating or updating a client, with a mapping (1=Empresa, 2=Pessoa). This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like 'buscar_clientes' or 'salvar_cliente'.

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 observation explicitly tells when to use the tool: to get TypeId during client creation/update. It provides the specific values (1 and 2) and their meanings. This gives clear, actionable guidance.

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