buscar_pedido

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates a read operation ('Busca informacoes') sourcing from a local database rather than Shopify directly, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't disclose return format, whether the data is cached/stale, or failure behavior when the order doesn't exist locally.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, enumerates the retrieved fields efficiently. Zero wasted words while conveying the key scope (Shopify, local DB) and data categories.

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 lookup tool with 1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. However, it's ambiguous whether it includes refunds (reembolsos is listed as retrieved data but there's a dedicated sibling tool listar_reembolsos) and doesn't clarify the relationship with siblings.

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 100% — the single parameter (pedido) is described with an example format (#14328). The description confirms this is an order number but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema. With 100% coverage and only 1 parameter, 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 clearly states the verb (Busca), the resource (pedido Shopify), and the specific data retrieved (cliente, valores, status financeiro, reembolsos, gateway). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like listar_reembolsos or fluxo_pedido, but naming the Shopify localization and local database provides reasonable scope distinction.

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 implies this is for looking up individual order information, but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like fluxo_pedido, listar_reembolsos, or resumo_financeiro. The Portuguese name and context suggest order lookup, but no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative naming is given.

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