compras_uasg_consultar

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

The annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those hints: active-then-inactive fallback lookup, `ativa: false` for extinct UASGs, the upstream `statusUasg` limitation, and 24h cache behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, return fields, and primary use case, with edge-case behavior following. The restoration announcement adds some time-sensitive tangential information, but it does not obscure the invocation-relevant content.

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 a single well-documented parameter and an output schema, the description is complete: it covers what the tool returns, when to use it, the extinct-UASG edge case, upstream limitations, and cache behavior. Nothing needed for correct selection and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents `codigo_uasg` as the numeric UASG code. The description's phrases 'pelo código' and 'resolver codigo_uasg' add no new format or semantic detail beyond the schema, 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Consulta uma UASG específica pelo código') and lists the returned fields. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like compras_uasg_buscar or compras_uasg_listar, but the by-code lookup scope is clear.

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 says the tool is useful for resolving `codigo_uasg` before filtered queries, which provides a clear use case. It does not provide explicit exclusions or name alternatives for when to use a different tool.

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