Como ativar o modo avançado

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds value by disclosing the specific payload the agent will receive (feature explanation, price, and key-acquisition steps), which is behavior beyond what the annotations state. It does not mention response format or that the answer is static documentation, a minor remaining gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that lists the three content areas in a natural order (what it does, cost, how to get the key). No filler, no repetition of the title, nothing that could be cut.

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 zero-parameter, read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough to know both the content and the safe nature of the call. The only thing missing is a hint that the return is explanatory text/documentation rather than structured data, which would help an agent set expectations about the response.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the input schema correctly declares an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless tool, and the description does not waste words restating the empty schema.

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 gives a concrete verb ("Explica") and enumerates exactly what content is covered: what advanced mode does, its cost, and how to get the free BitBusca key. This clearly marks it as an informational/how-to tool, distinguishing it from functional siblings like buscar_editais_bitbusca or meu_saldo, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when a user asks about advanced mode, pricing, or a free key. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of alternatives, and no signal about what to do if the user asks about something adjacent (e.g., account balance, which maps to meu_saldo).

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