compras_contrato_faturas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: client-side pagination, 15-minute cache, and a critical LGPD notice about the `infcomplementar` field potentially containing unstructured personal data (server name + SIAPE number) that is not masked. This is valuable beyond what schema/enum covers. It does not mention if it is read-only or destructive, but the action is a LIST, so read-only is implied.

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: one line for the endpoint and pagination, one line for cache, and one line for the LGPD warning. Every sentence adds unique, non-redundant information. No fluff or repetition. Highly efficient.

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 an output schema (though not shown here) and 3 well-documented parameters, the description covers the most important behavioral aspects: pagination, caching, and data sensitivity. It does not explain the return structure (but output schema handles that) or error conditions. For a listing tool, this is quite complete. A minor gap is no mention of rate limits or authentication, but those may be system-wide.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description does not add per-parameter details beyond schema, but it does add context about client-side pagination and the data sensitivity of the results, which indirectly informs how parameters should be used (e.g., paginate efficiently, be cautious with `infcomplementar`). This elevates the score above baseline.

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 tool lists invoices/faturas for a specific contract, with the endpoint path `/api/contrato/{id}/faturas`. It is specific about the resource (contract invoices) and the action (list), and among the many sibling tools related to contracts (e.g., `compras_contratos_listar`, `compras_contratos_consultar`, `compras_contrato_empenhos`), its purpose is distinct.

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 mentions client-side pagination and cache, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like `compras_contrato_empenhos` or `compras_contratos_consultar`. It provides no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., need the contract ID) or conditions that make this tool appropriate. The usage context is implied but not contrasted with siblings.

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