compras_contrato_responsaveis

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds important behavioral details: CPFs are masked for LGPD compliance, pagination is client-side, and results are cached for 15 minutes. These are non-obvious traits that materially affect how an agent interprets results and parameters, and they do not contradict the annotations.

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: it states the core action, then flags the key caveats (LGPD masking, client-side pagination, cache). Every sentence provides useful information and there is no 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 three-parameter read-only tool with a full schema and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers the main behavioral concerns an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results, without needing to explain return shape since an output schema exists.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that pagination is client-side, which changes the meaning of 'pagina' and 'tamanho_pagina'—they are not necessarily server-side pagination controls. This is useful semantic context beyond the schema text.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Lista fiscais/gestores', and reinforces it with the endpoint path '/api/contrato/{id}/responsaveis'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling contract-related tools such as compras_contrato_faturas or compras_contrato_garantias by naming a unique resource.

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 usage is implied by the resource: an agent can infer this is the tool to list contract fiscal/manager personnel. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions naming alternative tools, which would be valuable given the large set of sibling contract tools.

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