compras_arp_adesoes_item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists data (idempotent read), mentions a 15-minute cache, and specifies the open data endpoint. It also outlines the nature of the returned information (demand level, remaining legal limit). This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior without surprises.

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 four concise sentences, each earning its place: purpose, endpoint, output context, and caching behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids any redundant or vague language. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters with full schema coverage, an existing output schema, and many siblings, the description is sufficiently complete. It names the required context (ARP, item) indirectly via endpoint and parameter requirements. It could explicitly state that it operates per item, but the schema already captures that. The caching note adds operational awareness.

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 parameters are already well-documented in the input schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., explaining how 'numero_ata' relates to the item). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description offers no extra parameter context.

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 'Lista adesões (caronas) já realizadas a uma ARP', using a specific verb (list) and resource (adesões to ARP). It also provides context about what data is shown (who adhered, quantity, demand level, remaining limit). Among siblings like 'compras_arp_listar' and 'compras_arp_itens_listar', this tool's purpose is distinct and immediately understandable.

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 implies usage for listing adhesions to a specific ARP item, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'compras_arp_saldo_item' or 'compras_arp_unidades_item'). No when-not-to-use or explicit alternative names are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and siblings.

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