compras_catmat_buscar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It fully discloses the critical upstream bug (textual filter ignored, returning entire universe), confirms the behavior via probe, specifies that the `termo` parameter is still sent for compatibility but ineffective, mentions the emission of `_aviso_filtro` when the universe is returned, and notes 24-hour caching. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. It then uses a clear warning header, a bulleted workflow, and a concise note about behavior and caching. Every sentence is informative and necessary. No wasted words.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 1 required, output schema exists, 100% schema coverage), the description covers everything an agent needs: purpose, when to use, broken behavior, recommended approach, and caching policy. It is complete and self-contained.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the upstream bug and recommending structural filters strongly. It also clarifies that `termo` is still sent but not effective. These context-rich hints go beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, justifying a 4.

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 "Busca itens CATMAT." providing a clear verb+resource purpose. It also outlines a recommended workflow involving sibling tools (listar_grupos, listar_classes) to compensate for the broken textual filter, effectively distinguishing this search tool from listing and consultation tools.

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 explicitly recommends using structural filters (codigo_grupo, codigo_classe) instead of relying on the textual filter due to the upstream bug. It provides a step-by-step workflow using sibling tools to first obtain group and class codes, then use this tool with those filters. This is clear guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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