completar_lattes

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

Annotations already declare write behavior (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency and non-destructiveness, and openWorldHint covers the external lookups. The description adds the concrete external sources (Crossref, OpenAlex), which is useful, but it frames the action as 'sugerir' (suggest) and never states what actually gets written to the record, leaving a gap for a mutating tool.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the fetched fields and the goal are front-loaded, and the usage condition follows. Efficient, though the parenthetical field list is slightly compressed.

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 single-parameter, externally-sourced mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, sources, and when to invoke it. What is missing is what the tool writes back and the meaning/format of the 'semestre' input, but the core is largely 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required 'semestre' parameter, so the description carries the burden and does not define its format or which semester it scopes to. The word 'semestre' appears in the description, giving an indirect hint, but no explicit parameter semantics are provided.

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), the exact data fetched (data, tipo, veículo, DOI) and the external sources (Crossref, OpenAlex), plus the goal (sugerir o semestre). It clearly distinguishes itself from the normal collection flow ('A coleta já faz isso'), though it references that flow generically rather than by sibling name.

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?

Explicitly scopes usage: 'use em coletas antigas ou quando os itens vierem sem data', and implicitly tells the agent not to use it during normal collection. Clear when-to-use conditions with a soft exclusion, but no named alternative tool.

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