detalhes_envio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Obtém' (gets) indicates a read operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or mention any permissions or error conditions. It does disclose the content of the response (address, tracking, status), which adds transparency, but it is not as rich as it could be.

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 a single, concise sentence that includes the verb, resource, and key return elements. Every word adds value, and it is properly front-loaded with the main action.

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 simple get-by-id tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers what the tool does and what the response includes. However, it lacks details about potential errors (e.g., not found) or any special cases, and with no annotations, it could be slightly more explicit about the non-mutating nature.

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% coverage for the single parameter 'shipment_id' with a description 'ID do envio (shipment).' The tool description also mentions 'pelo ID', but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Obtém os detalhes completos de um envio (shipment) pelo ID' (Gets complete shipment details by ID). It specifies the resource (shipment) and the exact information returned (address, tracking, status), which differentiates it from siblings like 'detalhes_venda' (sale details) and 'historico_envio' (shipping history).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and description imply it is for retrieving a single shipment's details by ID, there is no explicit context about when to prefer it over sibling tools like 'historico_envio' or 'detalhes_venda'.

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