Avaliar Necessidade de PIA

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only says 'indicates if' without explaining the evaluation logic, output format, or whether this is a definitive determination. The agent is left unaware of how the criteria are combined or what kind of result to expect.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every part contributes meaning: the action ('indica se'), the subject ('tratamento'), the specific report (PIA/RIPD), and the legal basis (Art. 38 LGPD).

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 the tool's complexity (a nested object with six boolean criteria), the absence of annotations and output schema, and a sparse description, the agent lacks essential information about how to interpret the result and how the criteria are evaluated. The description alone is not enough to use the tool confidently.

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 50% at the top level, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Although the nested boolean criteria have descriptions in the schema, the description does not help map the legal requirements to the 'criterios' object or explain how 'descricao_processamento' contributes.

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's function: it indicates whether data processing requires a PIA/RIPD report under Article 38 of LGPD. This specific legal reference and the PIA/RIPD focus distinguish it from sibling tools like avaliar_risco_tratamento or validar_base_legal.

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?

The description provides legal context (Art. 38 LGPD) and implies the tool is for determining PIA necessity, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Usage guidance is therefore only implicit.

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