compras_catmat_buscar

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses that the upstream textual filter is currently ignored and returns the entire ~340k CATMAT universe, that the tool emits _aviso_filtro when it detects this, and that results are cached for 24h per term+filters+page. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 longer than average, but it is tightly structured with a warning callout, a numbered workflow, and a short cache note. Every section carries necessary information given the upstream bug, and the most urgent warning is front-loaded.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is complete for correct invocation: it covers purpose, current upstream behavior, a reliable workflow, parameter semantics, a payload warning, and caching behavior. No essential operational detail is missing.

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 schema already documents all parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds critical usage semantics: termo is sent but currently has no effective filtering power, while codigo_grupo and codigo_classe are the real reducers. It also explains the cache key. This goes beyond the schema, though the mention of codigo_pdm, which is not present in the schema, is a minor confusing detail.

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, a specific verb and resource, and clarifies this is the final search step in a workflow after listing groups and classes. It implicitly differentiates the search tool from the list/consult siblings and states the result is a CATMAT item search with textual and structural filters.

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?

It provides an explicit Workflow recomendado with numbered steps, telling the agent to call compras_catmat_listar_grupos and compras_catmat_listar_classes first, then call this tool with codigo_grupo/codigo_classe while the textual filter is broken. It also states that structural filters still work and termo is kept for compatibility, which is a clear when/when-not guide.

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