obter_registros

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the tool returns a ticket rather than direct data, that pagination may require repeated calls with completa=False until an empty result, and that authentication/ambient values fall back to environment variables. This gives the agent important non-obvious behavior beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a well-organized parameter list and then the critical return/pagination behavior. It is a bit longer than strictly necessary because it partially repeats schema information, but each section earns its place by adding operational context.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description provides everything needed to invoke the tool correctly: required parameters, optional parameters, defaults, return format, and how to handle pagination. It also connects to sibling tools in the workflow. No critical operational information is missing.

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 schema already covers all parameters at 100%, but the description adds genuine value: concrete examples for 'entidade', a clearer explanation of 'completa' (full vs incremental loads), and explicit env-var defaults for 'usuario', 'senha', and 'ambiente'. This goes beyond the schema descriptions without making them redundant.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Obtém registros de uma entidade do Claro Gerencial.' It clearly frames the tool as a data consultation/download and references the related workflow tools 'listar_entidades' and 'gerar_arquivo', which helps distinguish it from siblings like 'enviar_registros' and 'obter_status'.

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 explicitly states this tool is for consulting/downloading data and gives practical usage context: use 'listar_entidades' to discover valid entity slugs and use the returned ticket with 'gerar_arquivo'. It also provides pagination guidance by explaining when to call again with completa=False. It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools, but the context is clear enough.

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