olist_crm_obter_assunto

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic action and endpoint. It does not explicitly confirm this is a read-only operation, what the response contains, or any error/edge-case behavior. The provided documentation link is not accessible to the AI agent, so it adds no practical transparency.

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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes only the essential information: the action, the API version, and a documentation link. There is no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 one-parameter get tool, the description is minimal but still incomplete. It does not explain what the returned data looks like (no output schema exists), when to use this tool vs. other CRM tools, or any behavioral caveats. The documentation link is not a substitute for inline context, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance for correct usage.

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 describes the single required parameter 'id' as 'Número de identificação do assunto do CRM na Olist', achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no further parameter details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action ('Obter' = get) and the resource ('Assunto do CRM'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like olist_crm_pesquisa (search) or olist_crm_incluir_assunto (create). It also specifies the API endpoint 'crm.obter.assunto', making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 does not mention that this tool fetches a single subject by ID, nor does it contrast with search or create tools. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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