autopecas_verificar_estoque

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the two distinct return modes (detailed vs. summary), mentions alert symbols (⚠️) in detailed mode, and specifies output formats ('markdown' or 'json'). However, it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 perfectly structured: a clear opening sentence stating the dual functionality, followed by conditional logic explanation, parameter documentation with bullet points, and practical examples. Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (conditional behavior based on parameters), rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, and the existence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is complete. It explains all key behaviors, parameter interactions, and provides usage examples without needing to duplicate what's in structured fields.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage (the schema has no descriptions at the top level), the description carries the full burden. It provides excellent parameter semantics: explains that 'codigos' triggers detailed stock checks with alerts, omitting it triggers category summaries, 'categoria' filters summaries, and 'formato' controls output format. The examples further clarify parameter usage with concrete scenarios.

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 with specific verbs ('verifica estoque', 'exibe resumo geral') and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on inventory checking rather than searching, listing, or obtaining details. It explicitly describes two distinct behaviors based on parameter input.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use each mode: use with 'codigos' for specific part stock checks, omit 'codigos' for category summaries, and use 'categoria' to filter summaries. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'autopecas_listar_pecas' or 'autopecas_obter_detalhes' by focusing on stock verification rather than listing or detailed information retrieval.

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