Listar unidades ativas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering safety and data volatility. The description adds that it returns ID and Name of active units. No further behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, ordering, result limits) are disclosed, which would be useful but are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly conveys the action, resource, and output fields. Every word is necessary and there is no fluff.

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 parameterless read-only listing tool with openWorldHint, the description covers the essential output (ID and Name of active units). The lack of output schema is compensated by the explicit mention of fields. It does not mention response structure or potential edge cases (e.g., empty list), but these are minor omissions given the tool's simplicity.

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 has no parameters (100% coverage by definition). The description correctly implies no inputs are needed. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4; the description does not need to add parameter-level detail beyond stating the output.

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 verb 'Retorna' (returns) and the resource 'unidades de atendimento ativas' (active service units), specifying that ID and Name are provided. It distinguishes well from sibling tools, which cover appointments, KPI, and provider lookup.

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 context is implied by the tool's purpose—use it to list active units. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any prerequisites or caveats. For a simple parameterless tool, this is adequate but not exemplary.

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