Buscar Comunicacoes Djen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the rich return content (full text, partes, advogados, tribunal link, certidão PDF) and the volume behavior of broad queries, but it never explicitly confirms read-only / side-effect-free behavior, rate limits, or pagination semantics — the remaining gaps are notable given zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three short paragraphs: purpose, return content, then the query constraint. The most important routing information is front-loaded and every sentence carries weight — no repetition of schema field descriptions.

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 an 11-parameter tool with full schema descriptions and an output schema, the description covers purpose, output shape, and the key filtering constraint. The main missing piece is any confirmation of read-only behavior and pagination expectations, which matters because annotations are absent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: it groups which parameters actually function as search filters (OAB, advogado, parte, número do processo) and notes that tribunal and dates are legal but low-precision alone. That is useful semantic framing beyond the per-field descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Busca publicações e intimações no DJEN') and clarifies the differentiator versus DataJud (only metadata). However, it never differentiates from the closest sibling, listar_intimacoes, so an agent has to infer which one to pick from the name alone.

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 final paragraph gives actionable query guidance ('Informe pelo menos um filtro: OAB, advogado, parte ou número do processo') and warns that tribunal+dates alone return 'volume enorme', which steers the agent toward effective usage. It stops short of explicitly naming alternate tools or exclusions, but the when/how guidance is concrete.

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