progresso_safra

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness, or read-only nature, leaving significant gaps.

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?

The description is very concise, with a single introductory sentence and a bullet-like list for parameters. Every sentence is necessary and efficiently conveys the information without redundancy.

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?

Given the simplicity (2 params, one required) and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and parameters. However, it lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidance, leaving gaps in completeness for a tool with no annotations.

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?

The description adds value beyond the schema (which has 0% coverage) by explaining both parameters: the list of crop names and the state filter with default behavior. It provides examples and clarifies usage, though it could be more explicit about valid values.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Weekly planting and harvesting progress by state.' It specifies the resource and verb, lists the products, and explains parameters, making it distinct from siblings like 'estimativa_safra' or 'preco_diario'.

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 provides usage instructions (specify product, optionally state, empty for all) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or context.

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