ler_novo_mural_pr

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it uses an isolated browser, discovers the link dynamically, and returns only section text/links, not all model records. This supplements the readOnly/idempotent hints without contradicting them.

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 compact sentences deliver the core purpose, scope, and key behavioral constraint with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and output scope, and an output schema exists to describe return values. However, two input parameters (deslocamento and inicio_links) lack any semantic explanation, which is a meaningful gap for an agent trying to call the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for the three parameters. It explains the 'Dados abertos' enum value and implies section semantics, but deslocamento and inicio_links are completely unexplained, leaving their meaning, range, and effect on pagination ambiguous.

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 verb ('Lê'), a specific resource ('o novo Mural de editais a partir de 01/05/2026'), and a distinctive behavior ('descobrindo o link no portal'). It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by clarifying that it returns section text/links, not model records.

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 clear context: use this for reading the new public Power BI mural sections, discovering the link, and getting text/links rather than full records. It also clarifies the Dados abertos option's special purpose. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended usage is clear.

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