ler_pagina_portal_pr

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and open-world; the description adds valuable behavioral details beyond that: renderizar=True launches isolated Chromium, text pagination uses deslocamento, and links are fetched via inicio_links in batches of 100. It also instructs the agent to follow iframe links. No contradiction with the read-only annotation.

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?

Three compact sentences, each with a distinct role: core capability, key parameter behavior, and routing guidance. The most important information is front-loaded, and no sentence is filler.

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 annotations carrying the safety profile and an output schema available, the description covers the essential invocation decisions: when to render, how to paginate, how to handle iframes, and where to redirect document requests. The only small gap is the exact meaning of limite, which does not significantly impede correct selection.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining renderizar ('Chromium isolado'), deslocamento (textual pagination), and inicio_links (link pagination, batches of 100). 'limite' remains undefined, though its default of 20000 suggests a text-length cap; url is obvious from the 'página' context. The coverage is substantial but incomplete for one parameter.

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?

States it reads any public TCE-PR page and enumerates content types: text, links, iframes, and form fields. It specifically routes document requests to ler_documento_pr, distinguishing itself from a key sibling. The verb 'Lê' and the resource scope are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit routing: documents should use ler_documento_pr, and iframe-type links should be followed for embedded systems. The renderizar flag guidance ('usa Chromium isolado para JavaScript/Power BI') tells the agent when to enable the heavy rendering path. This is clear when-to-use context, even though it does not enumerate all sibling alternatives.

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