compras_pesquisar_precos_para_etp

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses real behavioral traits: it iterates over pages up to max_paginas, aggregates unit values, computes a full statistical summary, discards IQR outliers, and caches results for 10 minutes. 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?

Three tight blocks lead with the main action, then composition, then output and cache. Every sentence contributes information; there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 rich schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers what's needed to invoke it correctly: purpose, methodology, source tools, aggregation logic, ETP-ready output, and cache behavior.

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?

Input schema descriptions already cover 100% of parameters with details like page size, defaults, and the IN SEGES/ME 65/2021 recommendation. The description itself adds little parameter-level meaning beyond naming max_paginas in the composition narrative, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and object: 'Agrega preços praticados' applying a named methodology, then details the exact calculations and the ETP-ready output. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling aggregation/search tools by its purpose.

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 'Saída pronta para colagem em ETP' line gives a clear use case, and the methodology reference (IN SEGES/ME 65/2021) indicates when it applies. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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