detalhar_pendencia

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the returned explanation content and links (SUAP, comprovante, DOI), which helps an agent know what calling it produces.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core explanation and ending with the usage condition. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundant framing.

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 read-only two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the return content and usage context well. However, it leaves the required parameters entirely unexplained at 0% schema coverage, which is a meaningful completeness gap.

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 never mentions the two required parameters, semestre and numero, and schema description coverage is 0%. It only implies that some pendência is being identified, leaving parameter meaning and format undocumented.

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 (Explica), resource (UMA pendência), and scope (one item), and enumerates the explanatory content. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like resolver_pendencia, so the sibling-differentiation criterion for a 5 is unmet.

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 final sentence gives a clear use condition: when the teacher has a doubt about an item. It does not state when not to use the tool or name alternative siblings, but the intended context is explicit.

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