buscar_tipos_telefone

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

The description implies a read-only operation with 'buscar'. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not detail side effects, required permissions, or response structure. It minimally indicates no destructive behavior but lacks 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: one line plus a short observation. It is front-loaded and every word is useful. No unnecessary elaboration.

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 has one parameter and no output schema, the description should at least cover the parameter's function and hint at the response format. It does neither, leaving the agent uninformed about pagination and return values.

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?

There is one parameter (pagina) with default 1, but the description does not mention it at all. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fails to explain the pagination parameter's purpose or behavior.

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 it searches for phone types available in Ploomes CRM. The observation about obtaining TypeId when adding phones adds specificity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like buscar_status_contato or buscar_origens_contato by focusing on phone types.

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 explicit guidance: use this to get the TypeId when adding phones to a client. It does not mention when to avoid it or alternatives, but given the sibling tools, this is the only tool for phone types, so the guidance is sufficient.

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