compras_versao

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context beyond that by stating it reports the state of sensitive configurations without exposing their values, which is important for an AI agent to know before invoking.

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 short, front-loaded sentences in Portuguese deliver the tool's purpose, return content, and practical use cases with no filler. Every sentence earns its 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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description covers what the agent needs to call the tool successfully. The only completeness gap is the lack of clarification about how this tool relates to the similarly named compras_healthcheck sibling.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter-specific information, and nothing is lost because there is nothing to document.

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 identifies the tool as a healthcheck/diagnostic returning version, upstream sources, and sensitive configuration state—more specific than a mere 'version' label. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling compras_healthcheck, so it falls short of full sibling distinction.

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 concrete scenarios: confirm server responsiveness, check installed version, verify accessible APIs, and confirm whether the Transparência key is configured. It does not mention when not to use it or compare it with compras_healthcheck, so it lacks exclusions/alternatives.

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