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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavior: no sentence is generated, content is extracted verbatim from published pages, and every excerpt is tied to citations and official sources with a verification date. It does not contradict the annotations, though it leaves the idempotentHint=false annotation unexplained.

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 definition is a single sentence that packs the core action, the no-generation guarantee, and the return content without filler. The em-dash emphasis and all-caps 'EXTRAÍDAS' slightly reduce elegance but every clause 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 an output schema present, readOnlyHint=true, and only two well-documented parameters, the description covers the tool's essential behavior and return commitments (extracted quotes, citations, official sources, verification dates). It is complete for invocation, though it would benefit from explicit guidance on when to prefer it over sibling search tools.

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 input schema already documents both parameters (pergunta and paginas) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific semantic details beyond the schema; it only restates the general question/pages context.

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 names a specific action (responds to a legal question in Portuguese), a clear resource (published pages), and a distinctive output (citations, official sources, and the date each source was checked). The emphasized constraint 'nenhuma frase é gerada' differentiates it from search/fetch/ler_pagina siblings by promising an answer, not just retrieval.

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 makes the intended use clear—answering a legal question in Portuguese using extracted quoted sentences—so an agent can infer when to call it. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives among the sibling tools.

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