olist_expedicao_pesquisa

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It fails to mention any behavioral aspects such as pagination, response format, required permissions, or side effects. The user is left with no information beyond 'search expeditions'.

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 (three fragments), but the endpoint line ('expedicao.pesquisa') is redundant with the tool name and the initial phrase. It lacks structured presentation, such as a clear summary or usage hints, but it is not overly verbose.

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?

The description is critically incomplete for a search tool with no output schema. It does not state what the response contains, how pagination works, or any exclusions (e.g., the required formaEnvio parameter). Even the documentation link is an external reference rather than inline context.

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 provides descriptions for all 6 parameters (100% coverage), which is the baseline for a high-coverage schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already handles this adequately.

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 'Pesquisar expedições' is essentially a tautology of the tool name (olist_expedicao_pesquisa). It mentions 'API 2.0' and the endpoint, but these do not clarify the scope or differentiate it from sibling tools like olist_expedicao_pesquisar_agrupamentos.

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. There is no context about required parameters (e.g., formaEnvio), filtering by date, or distinguishing from the agrupamentos search. The description is purely a statement of existence.

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