obter_secao_investigacao

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 that nothing is discarded, exposes pagination defaults and the max page size, and states error conditions (nonexistent investigation_id or one expired from server memory). It does not describe auth requirements or rate limits, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and the dense single paragraph is largely justified by the section enumeration and pagination/recursion rules. Every sentence carries information, though the block could be broken up for scanability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained; given that, the definition covers the section taxonomy, pagination controls, recursion into related companies, and error conditions. Nothing an agent needs 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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description compensates fully: it enumerates all 19 valid values of the required 'secao' parameter (which the schema leaves as a bare string), and explains 'pagina' (default 1), 'tamanho_pagina' (default 20, max 50), and the origin of 'investigation_id'.

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 and resource: it retrieves the full paginated content of ONE section of an investigation. It also ties itself to the sibling tool that produced the id ('investigar_empresa'), so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Explains the entry condition (use the investigation_id returned by 'investigar_empresa') and the pagination walk needed to reach 100% of the data. It also resolves ambiguity about where process movements live ('movimentos_processuais', not 'processos_confirmados') and how to recurse into 'empresas_relacionadas'. It stops short of naming explicit alternative tools or when-not-to-use cases, so it is not a full 5.

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