olist_crm_pesquisa

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Pesquisar' and gives an endpoint. It does not mention whether results are paginated, what fields are returned, whether a request is read-only, or any side effects. There is no output schema, and the description adds minimal behavioral context.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. The endpoint and documentation link are useful, though there is slight redundancy between 'API 2.0' and 'API V2'. It is concise without being padded, but not maximally polished.

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 tool with 10 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It tells the agent what the tool does and where to find docs, but does not explain the return structure, pagination behavior, or any operational details needed to use it reliably without external documentation.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptive names and explanations, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the endpoint name, nor does it clarify relationships between parameters or expected values. The schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Pesquisar') and resource ('Assuntos do CRM'), and the endpoint name 'crm.pesquisa' reinforces its search nature. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'olist_crm_obter_assunto' and 'olist_crm_incluir_assunto'.

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. It only states what it does and gives an endpoint and documentation link, but no context for when a search over 'assuntos' is appropriate, nor any exclusions or comparisons to sibling search tools.

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