compras_detalhar_preco_material

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

Annotations already signal readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: the tool does not return price, lists the exact 7 upstream DTO fields, confirms the field never existed upstream, and notes the 10-minute cache. No contradiction with 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 first line front-loads the purpose and the critical 'no price' warning, followed by the alternative and use cases. The audit trail and DTO field list are informative but somewhat longer than strictly necessary, with the 'no price' point repeated multiple times.

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 annotations, 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description covers everything needed: endpoint, exact returned fields, the key limitation, the correct sibling, use cases, and cache behavior. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 has 100% description coverage, including defaults and date formats, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the general CATMAT item context, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Lista as compras individuais de um item CATMAT', and immediately clarifies the critical scope — 'sem valor de preço'. It names the sibling that does return price, so an agent can distinguish this tool without inspecting schemas.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool ('apenas para: descrição detalhada do item como comprado, objeto da compra e rastreio do idCompra') and when to use the alternative (`compras_pesquisar_preco_material` for unit prices). This is direct, actionable routing guidance.

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