Consultar estoque

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the operation is read-only, does not mention authentication or authorization requirements, and does not describe the response structure. The word 'saldo' implies a query, but side effects and data scope are unstated.

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 conveys the core purpose immediately. It is front-loaded and easy to scan, with no unnecessary information. It loses a point because it omits important contextual details that could be added without bloating the description.

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 is short and covers the basic purpose but lacks essential context for correct invocation: it does not explain what the input parameter represents, how the response is structured, or whether variations affect the output. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate with these details, and it does not.

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 schema has one parameter ('cod') with 0% description coverage,D and the tool description does not clarify what 'cod' refers to (product code, SKU, internal ID?). The description mentions 'variação' but does not explain how it relates to the parameter. Without schema descriptions and no additional explanation, the agent must infer parameter meaning from the tool name alone.

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 resource (product stock) and the data provided (total stock and available per variation). It uses a specific noun and implies a read operation. However, it does not explicitly mention an action verb like 'get' or 'query', and it does not differentiate from sibling tools, though siblings operate on different entities (cliente, produto, etc.).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like produto_get and clientes_list, but no mention of conditions that would select estoque_get over them. The description does not indicate prerequisites, such as whether the product code must exist or how variations are handled.

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