Status do pedido

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns status and invoice, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, error behavior for non-existent IDs, authentication needs, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral context.

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, concise sentence with no filler. The key information (status + invoice, by id/número) is front-loaded, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 query tool, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention response format or limitations, but without an output schema, that is not strictly required. The absence of any error or edge-case guidance leaves it incomplete.

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 has zero description coverage, but the description clarifies that the 'id' parameter is the order id/número, adding some meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not specify format, length constraints, or whether it can be numeric or alphanumeric in detail.

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 a specific resource (pedido) and what it returns (status + nota fiscal) via a clear verb. It distinguishes from siblings like pedido_alterar_status and pedido_cancelar, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage for querying a specific order's status and invoice, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or references to sibling tools like pedidos_consultar or pedido_por_data.

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