novacrm_get_proposal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the payload includes the related client, line items and totals — content not derivable from the input schema — but says nothing about read-only semantics, not-found behavior, or permissions. Given the low-risk nature of a single-ID fetch, this is adequate rather than rich.

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 zero filler: verb, resource, key, and returned contents in one pass. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient — it names the key and summarizes the returned structure (client, items, totals). Only the absence of not-found or error behavior keeps it short of full completeness.

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 required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('ID da proposta'), so the schema already does the work. The description only restates that the lookup is by ID, adding no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Obtém uma proposta') plus the lookup key ('pelo ID'), and enumerates what is bundled in the response (cliente, itens, totais). It is clearly distinguishable from novacrm_list_proposals, though it never names the siblings it contrasts with.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'pelo ID' — fetch a single known proposal. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over novacrm_list_proposals or how to obtain the ID in the first place, so the agent must infer the single-record vs. list split.

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