converter_lote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does contribute an important behavior: per-point failures are collected in 'erros' and do not abort the batch (partial-failure semantics). It stops short of stating that the operation is a pure computation with no side effects, and says nothing about the shape of the successful results.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler: purpose first, then accepted conversion modes, then payload shapes and error handling. The shorthand style (colon-separated examples, no framing for 'de/para') is efficient but occasionally terse enough to slow parsing.

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 should describe return values; it only explains the 'erros' side channel and never states what a successful result looks like (presumably a list of converted coordinates with the same 'nome' key). For a batch conversion tool with three undocumented-schema parameters, this leaves the caller guessing at the success payload and at hemisphere encoding.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema types 'pontos' as an untyped array of free-form objects, so the description must do all the work — and it does, spelling out the exact keys for GEO points ({'nome','lat','lon'}) and UTM points ({'nome','e','n','fuso','hemisferio'}) plus the accepted values for de/para. Remaining gaps are the accepted values for 'hemisferio' and whether de/para are case-sensitive.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Converte vários pontos') and the qualifier 'de uma vez' signals batch scope, which implicitly separates it from the single-point siblings geo_para_utm and utm_para_geo. However, no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation requires the agent to infer it from the tool names.

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 enumerates the four legal de/para combinations ('GEO:SIRGAS2000', 'GEO:SAD69', 'UTM:SIRGAS2000', 'UTM:SAD69'), which effectively constrains how the tool may be called. It does not, however, say when to prefer this batch tool over the single-point conversions or transformar_datum, so the routing decision is left implicit.

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