buscar_precos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it documents the env-var default for uf, that an empty base means 'todas as que estiverem baixadas', that an empty competencia selects the most recent, and that empty tipo returns both. It does not mention pagination/limite behavior, which is a notable gap for a search tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact parameter-by-parameter list with no filler. Each line earns its place; only the missing 'limite' line hints at incompleteness rather than verbosity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description compensates well for the 0% schema coverage on inputs. The only material gap is the undocumented 'limite' parameter, but otherwise an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for 6 of 7 parameters, giving format examples ('AAAA-MM'), allowed values (SINAPI/SICRO/ORSE/SEINFRA, sd/cd, composicao/insumo) and empty-value semantics. The 'limite' parameter is left entirely undocumented, which keeps this from a 5.

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: it searches 'serviços (composições) e insumos' by 'descrição ou pelo código'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like detalhar_item (which presumably details a single known item). It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Conditional usage is embedded in the parameters (uf mandatory for SINAPI/SICRO, regime only for SINAPI/SEINFRA, empty base = all downloaded), which the agent can infer. However, there is no explicit routing guidance about when to use this versus detalhar_item, orcar, or comparar_ufs.

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