sei_pesquisar_assuntos

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

The description is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=true) and adds useful behavioral context: version dependency, error handling tip, and that the result ID is used for creating processes. No contradiction.

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 concise with four sentences, each adding value: purpose, usage, version info, and an error handling tip. Front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words.

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 3 parameters and no param descriptions, the description does not cover how pagination works or what the output contains beyond mentioning the ID. However, existence of an output schema and annotations partly compensate.

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 must explain parameters, but it does not define 'limit', 'filtro', or 'pagina'. Only default values are in the schema, leaving the agent without guidance on filtering or pagination behavior.

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 it searches for available subjects for processes and explains how to use the returned ID. It distinguishes the tool implicitly as the only one dealing with 'assuntos' among many siblings, but lacks explicit comparison.

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 context on using the result ('Use o ID retornado...') and error handling, but does not compare this tool to similar search tools like sei_pesquisar_hipoteses_legais or sei_pesquisar_tipos_processo.

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