compras_arp_por_fim_vigencia

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing the source endpoint and the 15-minute cache, which informs freshness expectations. No contradiction with annotations.

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: the core function appears in the first sentence, followed by endpoint, business purpose, and cache TTL. Each sentence adds a distinct piece of information with no 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 all parameters documented by the schema, annotations carrying the read-only behavior, and an output schema present, the description supplies the remaining operational context (purpose, endpoint, cache). Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and call this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented with formats, defaults, and constraints (e.g., max 365-day window, pagination limits). The description's 'intervalo informado' only gestures at the date parameters without adding semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 function: 'Lista ARPs cuja vigência termina dentro do intervalo informado' – a specific verb, resource (ARPs), and date-range scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling ARP tools like compras_arp_listar or compras_arp_consultar, though the finite date-window condition makes the distinction inferable.

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 statement 'Permite ao gestor identificar atas próximas do vencimento' gives a clear intended-use context (finding ARPs near expiration), and the 'intervalo informado' wording ties usage to the required date parameters. It does not name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of the strongest definitions.

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