buscar_por_assunto

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the semantic-search-and-reranking nature of the tool, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'search' label. It doesn't discuss limits, sorting, or result shape, but the output schema exists and the semantic method is a significant disclosure, warranting a 4 rather than a 3.

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 compact: two sentences front-load the core behavior (semantic search with reranking by subject) and then give a practical equivalent plus examples. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler.

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?

For a two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers the semantic behavior, the intended query format, and examples. It doesn't detail 'limite' semantics or result ordering, but given the output schema exists and the tool is simple, this is nearly complete. Slight gap around the limit parameter's behavior prevents a 5.

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 compensate for the two parameters. It clearly explains that 'assunto' is a theme/topic string (with examples) and implies 'limite' by omission; while 'limite' is not explicitly described, the description's semantic explanation of the query parameter is the critical one. This is strong compensation for a 2-param tool.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Busca'), resource ('dispositivos'), and method ('busca semântica com reranking'), and explicitly distinguishes it from 'pesquisa' by noting it's optimized for theme descriptions with examples. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like pesquisar_norma.

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?

Description explains when to use: when searching by topic/theme rather than formal norm identifiers, with concrete examples of theme descriptions. It references an equivalent 'pesquisa' but doesn't name a specific sibling or give a when-not-to-use rule, so it loses one point for not being fully explicit about alternatives.

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