olist_contrato_obter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions the API endpoint and documentation URL, omitting any statement about side effects, required permissions, or return format. The verb 'obter' implies a read operation, but this is not explicit.

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 brief and front-loaded with the operation name, followed by the endpoint and docs link. No wasted words, but it is also quite minimal.

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 simple get-by-ID tool, the description provides the endpoint but omits any statement about response contents, error conditions, or usage context. It relies on the documentation link for completeness, and the lack of annotations and output schema leaves significant gaps.

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 fully documents the single 'id' parameter (100% coverage), including its meaning as the Olist contract identifier. The description adds no parameter-specific information, 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 states 'Obter Contrato' (Get Contract) and identifies the API V2 endpoint, making the verb (get) and resource (contract) clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search/create/update, though it lacks detail on what exactly is returned.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only gives the endpoint name and documentation link, with no mention of when to choose this over olist_contratos_pesquisa or other contract tools.

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