Devolve o texto integral de uma página do acervo pelo id que search retornou, com a URL para citação.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | o id devolvido por search — a rota canônica da página, como /consumidor/produto-com-defeito/ |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| url | Yes | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| metadata | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns full text and a citation URL, which is light behavioral context. It does not discuss errors, rate limits, or the fact that idempotentHint=false is set despite a read-only operation.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and object and states the id source. There is no unnecessary repetition or boilerplate.
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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema and read-only annotation, the description is nearly complete. It covers the core operation and the id provenance. The only notable gap is lack of guidance on how this relates to the sibling 'ler_pagina', which could confuse an agent choosing between them.
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 100%, and the schema already explains that 'id' is the canonical page route returned by search. The description restates this dependency but adds no new parameter-level details. Baseline 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Devolve') and resource ('texto integral de uma página do acervo'), and specifies that the identifier comes from 'search'. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling 'ler_pagina', which appears to perform a similar read operation.
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 conveys a clear prerequisite: use the id returned by search. This gives the agent context about when to call the tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The set has two overlapping pairs: search/buscar_paginas and fetch/ler_pagina both address searching and reading, which could confuse an agent. The descriptions do provide some separation—one pair is the standard connector format and the other is subject-oriented—but the boundaries are not immediately obvious from names alone.
Naming mixes Portuguese snake_case verbs (buscar_paginas, ler_pagina, relatar_defeito, responder_pergunta) with English bare names (fetch, search). This inconsistent language and style makes the tool set feel less predictable and harder to navigate.
Six tools is a well-scoped size for this domain. Each tool serves a plausible purpose: two search variants, two read variants, a defect reporting flow, and a question-answering flow. The count is neither bloated nor too thin.
The surface covers the core lifecycle of this read-only legal collection: discover pages, retrieve content, verify sources, submit defect reports, and ask grounded questions. No major operation appears to be missing for the stated purpose.
