detalhar_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose that the response is scoped by UF, regime and competência and covers historical stored prices. It says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or result size for a potentially large historical dump, so it only partially meets the heavier no-annotation bar.

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 that leads with what is returned before the goal clause; nothing is padded. It is slightly dense with parenthetical qualifiers but no sentence is wasted.

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 format needn't be explained, but the combination of zero annotations and 0% parameter coverage leaves the agent without guidance on the required codigo, the base options, or valid regime/UF values. For a four-parameter tool this is a material gap.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints at 'uf' and 'regime', but never explains the required 'codigo', the 'base' default of SINAPI, or accepted values for any of them, and it mentions 'competência', which is not even a 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 states a specific verb+resource (detail an item) and enumerates what is returned: full description, group, and all stored prices broken down by UF, regime and competência. That is more than a tautology. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from close siblings such as buscar_precos or comparar_ufs, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only usage signal is the trailing clause 'para ver a evolução do preço no tempo', which describes the goal rather than when to pick this tool over buscar_precos or comparar_ufs. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no named alternatives are given.

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