Opções da apuração do cartão de ponto

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain context (which calculation fields these values feed) but says nothing about return shape, whether the catalog is static or version-dependent, or whether it can be empty. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, this is adequate but thin.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, and the most important anchor ('Colunas criadas por Apurar Cartão de Ponto') is front-loaded. The nested parenthetical is compact rather than wasteful, though the list of categories makes it slightly hard to scan.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must at least frame what comes back; it enumerates the categories of content but never indicates the return structure or cardinality. Combined with the absence of any 'when to use this vs. another catalogo' routing, an agent can call it but cannot fully anticipate the response.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description goes slightly beyond by anchoring the catalogue's values to specific consumer paths (verbas[].quantidade.cartao, divisor.cartao), which tells the agent where the returned names are meant to be used.

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 names the concrete contents of the catalog (columns created by 'Apurar Cartão de Ponto', overtime criteria, fill-ins, shift types, night hours) and the exact field paths that consume the names (verbas[].quantidade.cartao, divisor.cartao). This makes the resource identifiable within the catalogo_* family, though it never states a retrieval verb like 'retorna'/'lista' and never names a sibling it should be preferred over (e.g. catalogo_verbas, catalogo_enums).

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?

Usage is only implied: the reader infers the tool should be consulted to obtain valid values for apuracaoCartaoPonto fields. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or preference relative to sibling catalogs such as catalogo_verbas or catalogo_enums, which is especially important given how many catalogo_* tools exist.

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