consultar_titulo

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

With no annotations, the description itself communicates a read operation via 'Lê' and discloses optional attachment/installment behavior. It does not mention return format, error behavior, or permissions, but for a read-only lookup the core transparency is adequate.

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 two short sentences, front-loading the operation and ending with a practical use case. No filler or 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?

For a simple read tool, the description covers purpose and usage, but with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves return structure and edge cases (e.g., not found) unstated. It is adequate for a straightforward verification call but not complete.

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 clarifies that titulo_id is the title number and that com_parcelas/com_anexos control inclusion of installments and attachments. However, the schema already documents the booleans, and titulo_id is only described as 'número' without further type or source detail, so added value is moderate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Lê' (reads) and identifies the resource as a Sienge título, queried by number with optional installments and attachments. It clearly describes a single-title lookup, which separates it from sibling list/search tools, though it does not explicitly name 'buscar_titulos' as the alternative.

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 explicitly advises using the tool 'para provar que o lançamento entrou como esperado' (to verify an entry was posted), giving a concrete use case. It does not provide exclusions or mention alternatives such as buscar_titulos, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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