incluir_fornecedor

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states the action. It fails to mention side effects, required permissions, duplicate handling, return values, or idempotency. For a create operation with 14 parameters, this is a complete lack of transparency.

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 a single concise sentence, but it is under-specified and provides minimal value beyond the tool name. It lacks detail or structure that would help an agent understand the tool's use, making it more under-specification than efficient conciseness.

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 complexity (14 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is drastically incomplete. It does not mention return values, required field formats, or any operational context, making it very difficult for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 14 parameters. It does not compensate for the lack of schema details, leaving the agent without guidance on required formats (e.g., CNPJ/CPF) or optional fields.

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 'Cadastra um novo fornecedor no OMIE.' clearly specifies a create/register operation for a supplier, using the verb 'Cadastra' (registers) and resource 'fornecedor'. This distinguishes it from siblings like listar_fornecedores (list) and alterar_fornecedor (update).

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as alterar_fornecedor for modifications. There is no mention of prerequisites, integration context, or situations where this tool is not appropriate. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Cadastra'.

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