compras_contrato_garantias

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states two key traits: 'Paginação client-side' (client-side pagination) and 'Cache 15 min' (15-minute cache). This informs the agent that pagination is handled locally, not via server parameters, and that data may be stale for up to 15 minutes. For a read-only list tool, this is substantially transparent. No contradictions with annotations (none exist).

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 extremely concise: two lines covering purpose, endpoint, pagination behavior, and caching. Every sentence provides essential information with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose in the first line.

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's complexity is low (3 parameters, 1 required, simple output schema likely), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose, endpoint, pagination, and caching. The output schema exists but isn't detailed; the description doesn't need to explain return values. A slight deduction for not mentioning that the guarantees are returned as a list or any filtering details beyond the contract ID, but the endpoint hint compensates.

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 baseline is 3. The schema already documents each parameter (id_contrato, pagina, tamanho_pagina) with types, defaults, descriptions, and constraints (max 500 for tamanho_pagina). The description adds the endpoint context (e.g., that id_contrato is used in the URL path) and the crucial 'client-side pagination' behavior, which clarifies that pagina and tamanho_pagina parameters are for local filtering, not server requests. This adds meaning 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 tool name 'compras_contrato_garantias' and description 'Lista garantias contratuais (/api/contrato/{id}/garantias)' clearly indicate it lists contractual guarantees for a specific contract. The verb 'Lista' (lists) and resource 'garantias contratuais' (contract guarantees) are precise, and the endpoint path further clarifies the scope. This distinguishes it well from siblings like 'compras_contrato_faturas' (invoices) and 'compras_contrato_ocorrencias' (occurrences).

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 implicitly states usage via the endpoint path: to list guarantees for a contract with a specific ID. It mentions 'Paginação client-side' indicating client-side pagination behavior, which hints at when to use pagination parameters. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'compras_contratos_itens_listar' or 'compras_contrato_empenhos', nor any 'when not to use' scenarios.

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