Buscar nas atas do Copom

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds value beyond that by disclosing the shape of returned excerpts and the query-retry behavior for technical vocabulary. It does not discuss result limits, ranking, or empty-result behavior beyond the retry hint.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by actionable retrieval advice. Every sentence carries weight, including the concrete vocabulary substitution examples.

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 covering return shape and annotations covering the safety profile, the description fills the remaining gaps: query strategy and excerpt usability for citation. It leaves the paging/limite behavior to the schema, which is acceptable but slightly thin for a search tool.

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 80%, so desde/ate formats, reuniao restriction and the consulta example are already documented. The description adds usage meaning for desde/ate ('comparar períodos') but says nothing about limite or how parameters combine, so the schema still carries most of the burden.

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 ('Busca parágrafos das atas do Copom') plus the scope ('sobre um tema') and the returned unit ('trechos com reunião, data, seção e parágrafo para citar'). The paragraph-level theme search is naturally distinct from siblings like ler_ata (full meeting) and listar_reunioes (meeting listing), so an agent can route without opening a 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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: combine with desde/ate to compare periods, and if the first search misses, retry with Copom-specific vocabulary or split into several short searches. No sibling is named as an alternative or exclusion, which keeps it from a 5.

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