Limite de crédito do cliente

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state 'Consulta', making the read-only nature and primary action clear, and it mentions the identifier types. However, it does not disclose output shape, authorization needs, or behavior when the identifier is not found.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word adds value: the action, the resource, and the accepted identifier forms are all present.

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 lookup tool with one required parameter and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the target data and the parameter semantics. The only notable gaps are response format and not-found behavior, which are minor for this low-complexity tool.

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 only defines codCpfCnpj as a string with 0% coverage. The description adds crucial semantics: the parameter is an identifier that can be a customer code, CPF, or CNPJ. This gives an agent enough context to populate the parameter correctly, though it omits formatting details.

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 uses a clear verb ('Consulta') with a specific resource ('limite de crédito') and states the accepted identifiers (código/CPF/CNPJ). This distinguishes it from sibling customer tools like cliente_get or clientes_list, which target broader customer data rather than credit limit.

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 (whenever a credit limit is needed by one of these identifiers), but it gives no explicit guidance, prerequisites, or comparison with alternatives. It does not say, for example, when to prefer this over cliente_get.

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