Verificar Consentimento

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 merely states the validation purpose but does not explain how validation is performed, what the output looks like, whether the tool is read-only, or what side effects (if any) occur. This is insufficient for the agent to predict the tool's behavior.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It communicates the core purpose directly, achieving maximum conciseness.

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?

The tool involves a nested object with five criteria and an observations field, yet the description gives no detail about the validation logic, expected results, or error conditions. There is no output schema or annotations to complement the gap, making the description inadequate for an agent to properly invoke and interpret the 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?

The description does not mention any parameters or criteria. Although the schema includes descriptive property labels, the description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema itself. Given 50% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for undocumented aspects or clarify how the criteria relate to the validation.

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 states a specific verb ('Valida') and resource ('consentimento') tied to a legal article (Art. 8º da LGPD), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'validar_base_legal' or 'gerar_modelo_consentimento'. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with these alternatives in the description.

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 its use case via the name and legal reference, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling compliance tools. There is no 'when-not' guidance or mention of prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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