buscar_informacoes_publicas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the headless-browser read-only behavior, that no forms/actions are executed, that 'titulo' can be null, and enumerates failure modes (invalid URL, timeout, navigation failure). It omits auth/rate-limit or redirect/cookie handling details, so not a full 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then constraints, then return shape and errors; every sentence is substantive. The return-value sentence is partly redundant given an output schema exists, which keeps it from a 5.

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 single-parameter fetch tool with an output schema, the description covers what it does, what it refuses to do, the input constraint, the nullability of 'titulo', and the error surface. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it does: it marks 'url' as required and adds a hard constraint beyond the bare 'string' type (valid, publicly accessible http/https URL). It does not give format examples or query-string guidance, so 4 rather than 5.

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 a specific verb+resource ('abre uma URL publica com um navegador headless e extrai informacoes basicas') and scopes exactly what is extracted (titulo e texto visivel). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ping or buscar_empresa without opening any schema.

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?

Clearly frames the operating context: it only reads loaded content and explicitly does not interact with forms or execute page actions, plus the url must be publicly accessible http/https. It does not name an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use-this case, so it stops 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.