compras_contrato_faturas

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotent annotations, the description discloses cache behavior, client-side pagination, and a critical LGPD masking caveat about the `infcomplementar` field potentially containing personal data not covered by masking. This adds substantial behavioral context far beyond what annotations 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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then behavior, then the LGPD warning. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant text 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?

For a list operation with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, endpoint, pagination, caching, and the key privacy caveat. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly 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 input schema already has 100% coverage, describing all three parameters (`pagina`, `id_contrato`, `tamanho_pagina`) including defaults and max value. The description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'Lista NFs/faturas' and gives the endpoint '/api/contrato/{id}/faturas', clearly identifying a specific verb and resource: listing invoices for a given contract. This is unique among sibling tools, none of which target faturas, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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 clear practical context: pagination is client-side, results are cached for 15 minutes, and LGPD-sensitive free-text fields may contain unmasked server names and SIAPE numbers. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose and these usage notes give enough guidance for the agent to select and use the tool correctly.

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