orcar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the pricing model (code × quantity × base price, BDI over direct cost) and the per-item base override rule, but says nothing about missing codes, invalid base/uf combinations, permissions, or failure behavior.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the purpose leads, followed by a concrete item example and the base fallback rule. Every sentence adds value, with only minor terseness in the item example syntax.

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 6-parameter, 0%-coverage tool this leaves substantial gaps: uf, regime (default "sd"), and competencia are undocumented both in the schema and the description, so an agent cannot reason about what they control. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but the unexplained input params are a real deficiency.

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 6 params, so the description must compensate. It does document the itens structure with a concrete example and clarifies base as the fallback when an item omits its own; however uf, regime, and competencia are left entirely unexplained, including their defaults.

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 ("Monta um orçamento rápido") and spells out the computation as código × quantidade × preço da base with BDI applied over direct cost. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like calcular_bdi or buscar_precos, though it never names those alternatives.

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 explains the mechanics of the calculation but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions relative to calcular_bdi, buscar_precos, or bases_disponiveis. Usage is only implied by the word "rápido".

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