Buscar cidades

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

The description does not disclose whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. The verb 'buscar' suggests a search, but there is no explicit statement about it being non-destructive or about response shape. With no annotations to supplement, this is a critical omission.

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 extremely concise—a single short sentence that conveys the core purpose and the filtering criterion. It is well-structured and free of unnecessary detail.

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?

The description provides enough context to understand that it searches cities by description, but it does not specify what the response contains (e.g., a list of city objects). Since there is no output schema, this missing detail prevents full completeness, though the primary function is clear.

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 parameter 'descricao' is directly explained by the parenthetical '(por descrição)', indicating it is the description used to filter cities. This gives clear meaning, though it does not specify matching rules (e.g., exact vs. partial), which is a minor gap.

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 action (buscar = search) and the resource (cidades cadastradas no ERP). It distinguishes this tool from siblings which deal with clients, products, etc., by specifying cities. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it (when needing cities by description) but does not explicitly provide usage guidance or contrast with alternatives. Since there are no alternative city-related tools among siblings, the context makes it obvious, but the description itself lacks explicit instructions.

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