explicar_processo_compras

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 is transparent about what the tool returns: a staged explanation of the purchase process, including optional steps, valid paths, API limits, and which stages are actually covered by server tools ('nem toda etapa do processo é coberta'). This sets accurate expectations about the tool's advisory role.

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 concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence earns its place: the first defines scope, the second gives usage guidance and error prevention, and the third sets expectations about tool coverage. No fluff or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, what content it will provide, and its limitations. The sibling tool names further clarify the context, making this description fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description appropriately does not waste space on parameter details; it focuses on the tool's purpose and output, which is all that is needed for a no-input advisory tool.

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 the tool's specific purpose with a clear verb ('Explica') and resource ('processo de compras do Sienge'), and goes further to specify the content (5 etapas, opcionais, caminhos válidos, limites da API). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which perform data retrieval or connection tests, by positioning itself as a process guide.

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 explicit usage direction: 'Consulte ANTES de responder qualquer pergunta sobre solicitações, cotações, pedidos de compra ou aprovações.' It also mentions common pitfalls to avoid, which helps the agent decide when to use this tool before attempting data queries, and notes that the tool identifies which stages have actual tool coverage.

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