compras_arp_adesoes_item

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful runtime context beyond annotations: the underlying endpoint, the 15-minute cache behavior, and the interpretive value of the data (demand level and remaining legal adhesion limit). No safety-relevant side effects remain undisclosed.

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. Every sentence earns its place: what the tool does, the source endpoint, the meaning of the output, and cache behavior. There is no repetition of schema content or filler.

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?

With rich annotations, an output schema, and a fully documented input schema, most operational ambiguity is already resolved. The description adds the endpoint, cache behavior, and high-level result interpretation. Missing explicit sibling routing is a minor gap, but nothing critical for invoking the tool is absent.

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 of 3 applies and the description does not need to restate parameter semantics. It does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema, but the schema's per-field descriptions with examples already carry that burden 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lista adesões (caronas) já realizadas a uma ARP.' It further explains what the data shows ('quem aderiu e com que quantidade'), which distinguishes it from generic ARP listing tools. It does not explicitly contrast with close siblings like compras_arp_saldo_item or compras_arp_unidades_item, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 usage context is implied: an agent seeking existing adhesions to a specific ARP item, or demand-level information, would select this tool. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related ARP sibling tools, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing guidance.

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