estrutura_formulario

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: the per-session in-memory cache and the resulting cost profile (1 call first time, 0 thereafter while the server runs), which tells the agent re-querying is cheap.

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 return contract, then usage timing, then cost. Three short lines, each carrying distinct information and no repetition of the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned structure in detail so the agent knows what to expect. The caching note covers the one non-obvious runtime behavior; only the exact return shape (field names/types) remains unspecified.

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 100%, so id_formulario, max_opcoes and forcar_atualizacao are all documented in the schema itself, including that the id comes from listar_formularios. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource and enumerates exactly what it returns: field order, technical key, label, type, multiplicity, required flag, choice options, display rules and groups. It stops short of naming a sibling tool, but the fields listed clearly separate it from listar_formularios (which yields ids) and the PDF/export tools.

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 states when to use it: 'Use antes de montar planilha ou PDF', positioning it upstream of the generation tools in the sibling list. It also gives cost guidance (1 call first time, then 0). No explicit when-not or named alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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