Consultar pedidos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds minimal behavioral context: mentions combined filters, pagination, and that each order brings Cliente and Produtos. However, it does not explain things like whether filters are AND/OR combined, what the response structure is (beyond returning client/products), or any rate limit or data scope (e.g., this appears to be a CRM or ERP module, but that's not explicitly stated).

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences with no fluff. It efficiently gets the purpose and a key behavioral note (combined filters and pagination). The annotations and schema are not repeated, which is good practice. It could add a tiny bit more context, but it's well-sized for its current content.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is under-developed. It explains what gets returned (Cliente, Produtos) but not the response shape, which is critical for an agent to parse results. It also lacks context on how filters interact or what 'status' refers to. For a query tool of this complexity, more guidance is needed to be complete.

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 low at 29%, with only 2 of 7 parameters having descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific details. However, parameter names are mostly self-explanatory (e.g., 'dataCadastroMin', 'registrosPorPagina'), and the date parameters include format details in the schema. The description's mention of 'filtros combinados' hints that parameters can be used together, which is some compensation, but it doesn't fully bridge the gap.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Consulta pedidos' (queries orders) with combined filters and pagination. It distinguishes the tool's scope by noting that every order includes Cliente and Produtos, which is useful, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling for differentiation. It is clearly a query/consult tool versus sibling create/update tools.

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 this is for querying orders with filters, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like pedido_por_data or pedido_status. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions. Agents would not know if this is the right tool for a specific order-querying use case without deeper inference.

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