Atualizar dados

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key trait — that it bypasses the local cache and forces a network download — which tells the agent results may differ from cached reads. It omits whether this mutates only local state or also hits the remote service, whether it can fail/rate-limit, and how long it may take.

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?

A single sentence with the operative verb ('Força um novo download') front-loaded and the cache-bypass qualifier trailing it. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs reordering.

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 this is close to sufficient, but there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should say what happens after the refresh — whether it returns the fresh data, only an acknowledgement, or requires a follow-up call to resumo_geral/listar_posts. That omission leaves the agent guessing about next steps.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema has no properties, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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 action and target: force a fresh download of the Flaviômetro feed, bypassing the local cache. That is far more concrete than the generic name/title 'Atualizar dados', so the description does the differentiating work. It doesn't name a sibling, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Using it implicitly means 'I want fresh data rather than cached data', and that condition is conveyed by 'ignorando o cache local'. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of cost or latency that would deter an agent from calling it before every read, and no pointer to the sibling read tools that consume the refreshed feed.

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