abrir_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the returned field set, that nonexistent ids return encontrado=false, that full text is unavailable here, and a prompt-injection caveat about third-party content.

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 purpose, then return fields, limits, and the injection warning; each clause adds real information. Slightly verbose, and repeating the id format under "Args" is partly redundant with the schema, but no meaningful waste.

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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and an existing output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: id format, return contents, the not-found signal, and the boundary that full text lives elsewhere. Nothing material is missing.

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 0% and there is exactly one parameter, so the description must carry the load. It does add format meaning (UUID, with or without hyphens) that the schema does not express, though it does not explain the 64-character max length constraint.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Abre um item da base do IA.med pelo id") and locates the id's origin in the sibling tools listar_recentes and buscar, which implicitly separates this single-item fetch from their list/search role. An agent can distinguish this tool from its siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Clearly signals the usage context by naming where the id comes from (listar_recentes or buscar) and warning that full article/class text lives in the app via link_app, i.e. this tool is not for full-text retrieval. No explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the context is clear enough for correct invocation.

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