Servicos e precos de um pais

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses a hard rate limit (6 requests/minute), the sort order, the price unit (BRL cents), the existence of nested supplier options, and the output field names serviceId/apiId. It is a read-only listing so no destructive/permission caveats are needed, though pagination behavior beyond the limit param is unstated.

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?

Front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the ID-to-request_number linkage, the search tip, and the rate limit. Every sentence carries information, though the opening sentence is long and stacks several facts (ordering, price unit, supplier options) into one breath.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the return-shape essentials (serviceId/apiId, price in cents, supplier options, ordering) plus the cross-tool contract with request_number. Only limit/pagination semantics and any country-availability nuances remain implicit.

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 100%, so limit, search, and country are already fully documented in the schema (baseline 3). The description adds only that search exists as a way to cope with the large Brazil list; it adds no format or default details beyond what the schema already carries.

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?

Names a specific resource (servicos/serviços com estoque por país) and adds distinguishing detail: sorted cheapest-to-most-expensive, prices in BRL cents, and per-service supplier options. An agent can immediately tell this apart from get_balance, list_countries, or request_number.

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?

Gives clear context for when the tool is needed and how to navigate it (use "search" to find a service by name given the ~700-item Brazil list). It also states downstream usage: the returned serviceId/apiId are the values passed to request_number. No explicit exclusion rules are given, but the routing guidance is concrete.

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