sugerir_apropriacao

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 explains that the tool does not spend an API request, that it draws on local config files (aprendizado.json and regras.json), and that it may return no suggestion as a possible outcome with a clear fallback action. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it stops short of stating whether it performs any writes or side effects.

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 three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, cost characteristic, and fallback. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no redundant or filler wording.

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 low-to-medium complexity, optional parameters, and absence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete for an agent to call the tool correctly. It explains what the tool suggests, the data sources it uses, that it incurs no request cost, and how to handle a missing suggestion. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly describe the structure of a successful suggestion response, but 'sugere centro de custo e plano financeiro' implies the response contains those values.

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 coverage is 60% (itens, descricao, fornecedor have descriptions; cpf and cnpj do not). The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond naming the 'fornecedor' history as the source of suggestions. It does not clarify the relationship or precedence between cpf, cnpj, and fornecedor, nor how itens/descricao influence the suggestion. The parameter names are fairly self-evident, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Sugere centro de custo e plano financeiro para a despesa'. This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like listar_centros_custo or aprender_apropriacao, which are listing or learning operations rather than suggestion operations.

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 gives clear context: the tool is appropriate when there is confirmed supplier history and user rules, and it explicitly notes that it does not consume a request. It also provides a conditional behavior ('Sem sugestão = pergunte ao usuário'), which helps an agent decide whether to ask the user. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when NOT to use it beyond the no-suggestion branch.

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