Detalhar um item

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

The description reveals behavioral details beyond annotations: for *-openapi and participantes domains, the full spec node is included in `detail`; $ref fields are not expanded but listed in `refs`; and pcm-additional-info returns the full record vs search's summary. These details are not present in the annotations, which only cover reading/idempotency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then provides essential domain-specific nuances. No wasted words; every clause adds necessary information.

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 complexity of multiple domains and no output schema, the description covers all key variations: full vs summary records, the `detail` field, and the `refs` behavior with instructions to resolve. It is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect and how to proceed.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both `id` and `domain`. The description adds contextual meaning by specifying that `id` comes from search and that domain-specific behavior affects the response, which is valuable beyond the schema.

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: 'Devolve o registro completo de um item pelo id retornado por search', which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting that search returns only a summary in pcm-additional-info, while get_item returns the full record.

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 instructs to use get_item with an id from search and to call get_item on referenced refs in *-openapi domains to resolve them. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and contrasts with search, which returns summaries in some domains.

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