compras_detalhar_preco_servico

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 the critical limitation that the tool does not return any price field, lists the exact DTO fields, mentions the endpoint, and states a 10-minute cache. It does not cover error handling or authentication requirements, but for a read-only list tool, the transparency is high and adds significant value beyond the schema.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose and key limitation. It then provides the endpoint, a warning, field list, alternative tool, and cache duration in a few sentences with no redundant or irrelevant content. Every sentence contributes value.

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 5 parameters (1 required) and an output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects: what it returns, what it does not return, how to get price data, and cache behavior. It mentions the endpoint and DTO fields. The output schema exists, so return description is not needed. Minor omissions like pagination behavior are already covered by parameter descriptions. The description is sufficiently complete for a list tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema's detail for the required parameter (e.g., 'Código CATSER do serviço. Inteiro 4-6 dígitos. Ex.: 27332') and adds context by linking the parameter to the tool's purpose, but does not introduce new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it lists individual purchases of a CATSER service without price. It uses a specific verb ('lista') and resource ('compras individuais de um serviço CATSER') and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'compras_pesquisar_preco_servico' by explicitly noting it does not return price, while the sibling does.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'Para preço unitário de serviço use compras_pesquisar_preco_servico'. It also clarifies the tool's scope (only returns data without price) and provides cache duration, giving clear context for decision-making.

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