Catálogo de verbas (Expresso)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld=false, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that by describing the returned content (each verba's default fields plus its reflexos list), which is useful since there is no output schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by a practical naming instruction. The parenthetical field list is dense but informative rather than wasteful.

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?

For a read-only, single-optional-parameter catalog with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the returned structure and the canonical-name contract. Minor gaps (result ordering, meaning of an unfiltered call) are inferable from the schema's zero required parameters.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'filtro' with examples. The description adds no filtering syntax or semantics of its own, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific resource (the "Expresso" launch verbas of PJe-Calc) and enumerates its default parameters and reflexos list, so an agent knows exactly what this catalog returns. It lacks an explicit verb but the resource scope is precise enough to separate it from generic catalog siblings.

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 implied: this is a lookup for canonical verba/reflexo names, reinforced by 'Use os nomes exatamente como aparecem aqui'. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., catalogo_enums) and no note on whether filtro is optional or what an unfiltered call returns.

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