obter_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides a comprehensive list of status codes and explains that when status=9, the 'Conteudo' field contains the detailed log. This gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's output semantics and processing lifecycle, though it doesn't mention polling behavior or error-handling recommendations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the core purpose and usage context appear in the first sentence, followed by a compact but valuable status-code list. Each status code is meaningful for the agent's decision-making, and the final note about status=9 and 'Conteudo' is relevant and concise.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover expected response behavior. It explains the meaning of all status codes and the special log behavior at status=9, which is sufficient for a status-polling tool. It could be more complete by describing the response shape for error statuses or suggesting when to stop polling, but the essential context is present.

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 input schema already documents all 5 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'ticket' comes from 'enviar_registros', which is already stated in the schema. It doesn't add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, but it also doesn't need to.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Consulta o status de um envio de registros pelo ticket', identifying both the action (consulta status) and the resource (envio de registros identified by ticket). It also references the related 'enviar_registros' flow, which distinguishes this status-checking tool from the other sibling 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?

It explicitly says 'Use após enviar_registros para acompanhar o processamento', giving a clear usage context and indicating the sequential relationship with the submission tool. It doesn't list alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the sibling tools are distinct enough that this is not a major gap.

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