get_event_types

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. 'Busca' implies a read-only search operation, and the scope is stated as 'disponíveis no sistema'. Yet the description does not explicitly confirm the absence of side effects, nor does it clarify whether results are scoped by the required client_slug or global to the system; the return format is also unspecified.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical examples immediately illustrate the expected result values, making the description informative without unnecessary length.

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 simple list tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it conveys the operation and provides examples of the returned values. It is incomplete only in not clarifying the role of client_slug relative to the 'system-wide' event types or outlining the return shape, which is a minor gap for such a straightforward getter.

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 the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no information about client_slug beyond the schema's 'Identificador do cliente (slug)', and it does not explain how this parameter influences which event types are returned.

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 ('Busca'/'search') and a specific resource ('todos os tipos de eventos disponíveis no sistema'), reinforced by concrete examples ('lead_added, task_completed'). This makes it easy for an agent to distinguish it from sibling tools that handle event instances, such as get_events and get_event_by_id.

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 intended usage is implied rather than explicit: the agent can infer that this tool should be used when it needs the enumeration of valid event types. However, the description does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference alternatives like get_events or get_event_by_id, so the decision logic is left to inference.

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