Obter cliente

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it merely restates the operation—fetch a customer by code. It is silent on not-found behavior, the meaning of the number|string union, auth requirements, and error handling. This is minimally informative for a mutation-free read tool, so it falls short of a 3.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core retrieval semantic. It suits the minimal scope of a get-by-code tool, though one could argue it is lean to the point of thinness.

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, one-parameter lookup, the description is close to adequate—'Retorna um cliente' even covers the return value, which matters given there is no output schema. But within a 27-tool sibling surface with several cliente_* options, the lack of guidance on when to reach for this tool leaves the agent to rely on the tool name alone.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'cod' parameter, but 'pelo Cod' merely repeats the property name without adding format, example values, or domain constraints. It does clarify cod is the lookup key, which is the one thing that goes beyond the structured schema.

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 'Retorna um cliente pelo Cod' uses a clear verb (Retorna) and resource (um cliente) qualified by the lookup key (Cod). It implies single-record semantics, distinguishing it from the list-oriented clientes_list. However, it never names or contrasts with siblings such as clientes_list, cliente_atualizar, or cliente_criar, so it doesn't quite reach the bar of explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the 27 siblings. With customer-adjacent alternatives like clientes_list, cliente_limite_credito, and cliente_arquivos available, the absence of usage context or exclusions is a real gap for an agent deciding between them.

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