Listar clientes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the call is paginated, that an unfiltered call is not valid (exige ao menos um filtro), and that pageTake should not exceed the 100 recommendation. It stops short of covering rate limits or the failure mode when no filter is supplied, but the core behaviors are transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by constraints, with no filler. The pagination note and filter requirement are stated compactly and earn their place.

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 paginated list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential facts: purpose, mandatory filtering, pagination, and page-size guidance. The only notable gap is routing guidance toward cliente_get for single-record lookups, but nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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 coverage is only 40%, so the description must compensate. It does: it clarifies that codCpfCnpj and the date fields are the accepted filter options and frames pageTake with a recommended maximum. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though pageSkip's role and codCpfCnpj's expected format remain undocumented.

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 the verb+resource clearly ('Lista clientes do ERP') and adds that the result is paginated. It is distinguishable from the sibling cliente_get by the plural 'paginado' wording, but it does not explicitly call out that this lists many clients while cliente_get fetches one, so differentiation is only implicit.

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 gives an explicit precondition: at least one filter is required (codCpfCnpj OR a cadastro/alteração date), and it recommends pageTake max 100. This is concrete when-to-use guidance. It does not, however, describe when to prefer this over related siblings like cliente_get, so no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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