Validar Base Legal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the validation purpose but does not reveal whether the operation is read-only, what output format to expect (e.g., boolean, explanation), or any preconditions like the optional finalidade parameter. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the verb and resource, with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must clarify return values and operational context. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a verdict or detailed analysis) or address the optional finalidade parameter's role. Given the 3-parameter complexity, the description is incomplete.

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 100% for all three parameters, so the schema already provides full parameter semantics. The description adds little beyond referencing LGPD Articles, which aligns with the tipo_dado enum but does not enhance understanding of the parameters themselves.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verifica') and clearly identifies the resource ('base legal') and context ('determinado tratamento de dados') with references to LGPD Articles 7 and 11. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like verificar_consentimento or avaliar_necessidade_pia.

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 implies a clear use case (validating legal basis adequacy) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. No guidance is given on when not to use it or how it differs from similar validation tools.

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