sei_ler_documento

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds value by explaining that OCR is applied for scanned PDFs and that the tool returns text in various formats. It does not contradict annotations, so it scores well.

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 well-structured with bullet points for parameters and clear separation of concerns. It is fairly concise given the amount of information, though some redundancy could be trimmed.

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 (4 parameters, access control, OCR, multiple output formats) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for proper usage. It covers all necessary aspects without relying on the output schema.

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%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning, default values, and enum options. It provides clear, actionable guidance for 'tipo_documento', 'formato', and the critical 'confirmar_acesso_restrito' flag.

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 reads a document and returns readable text. It specifies that it accepts both internal IDs and formatted protocol numbers, which distinguishes it from generic retrieval tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like sei_buscar_documento, so it loses a point.

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 good usage guidance through parameter explanations, especially for 'confirmar_acesso_restrito' with clear instructions on when to set it. However, it lacks explicit comparison with alternative tools or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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