olist_contratos_pesquisa

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only supplies the endpoint name and a docs URL, but doesn't disclose return format, pagination behavior, authentication needs, or how filters are combined. For a search tool, the output and paging behavior should be described.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating purpose, endpoint, and documentation in three short phrases. The endpoint information is somewhat redundant with the tool name, and the docs URL provides marginal value to an AI agent, but the overall length is appropriate.

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 search tool with 8 optional filter parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the response looks like, how the 'pagina' pagination parameter works, or what happens when no filters are supplied. The absence of an output schema makes this gap more significant.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. All 8 parameters (pagina, cliente, cpf_cnpj, situacao, dataFinal, idVendedor, dataInicial, nomeVendedor) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 operation: 'Pesquisar Contratos' (Search Contracts), with a specific verb and resource. It also identifies the API endpoint and provides a documentation link. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like olist_contrato_adicional_pesquisa, though the 'Pesquisar' verb does separate it from get/create/update contract tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no when/when-not conditions, no prerequisites, and no mention of sibling tools such as olist_contrato_obter or olist_contrato_alterar. The only hint is the documentation link, which doesn't count as in-description usage guidance.

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