buscar_preenchimentos

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the exact return payload shape, what is deliberately omitted (attachment links and group items), the sort order, the pagination contract via tem_proxima, and the call-cost model with structure caching. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a read 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized into return contents, exclusions/alternatives, ordering, pagination strategy, and cost. Despite covering a lot, each sentence carries operational information the agent needs, with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns itself, and it does: field list, omitted data, ordering, and the tem_proxima signal used for pagination. Combined with the cost model and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to invoke and iterate 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the structured field descriptions already carry the parameter burden and baseline is 3. The description adds genuine usage semantics on top: how to set pagina and tamanho_pagina for specific retrieval goals and how to advance pages, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 and resource (fetch one page of form submissions) and enumerates exactly what each record contains (id, date, author, origin, device coordinate, simple fields by label, repeatable-group item counts, attachment counts). It explicitly distinguishes itself from exportar_preenchimentos and contar_preenchimentos, so an agent can route correctly without opening another 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use rules: pagina=1 + tamanho_pagina=N for the N most recent, contar_preenchimentos plus the last page for the oldest, and exportar_preenchimentos when handling many records. It also spells out the paging loop (call again with pagina+1 while tem_proxima is true) and the per-call cost, including the extra structure call on the first page.

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