buscar_jurisprudencia_avancada

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'resumo para analise' (summary for analysis) but does not detail return format, pagination, rate limits, or whether the tool modifies data. It fails to disclose important behavioral traits.

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 description is a single short sentence. While concise, it lacks structure such as a breakdown of parameter usage or use cases. It is not overly verbose but could be more informative.

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?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is highly incomplete. It fails to explain how filters work, what the summary contains, or the relationship to sibling tools. The tool is complex, and the description does not provide adequate context for effective use.

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 does not explain any of the 6 parameters (e.g., 'orgao', 'tribunal', 'data_inicio'). It only generically mentions 'filtros' without linking to specific parameters. This leaves the agent unable to understand how to use the inputs.

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 clearly states the tool performs an advanced search of jurisprudence with filters and summary. It distinguishes from related tools by using 'avancada' (advanced), but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'buscar_jurisprudencia'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this advanced search versus the basic search or other tools. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenario-specific advice.

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