Ficha do advogado por OAB

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things annotations cannot convey: an authentication requirement (BITBUSCA_API_KEY) and a data-minimization constraint (no phone, e-mail or address), which prevents the agent from promising contact details.

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?

One compact sentence plus a bracketed prerequisite; the auth requirement is front-loaded and the returned fields are listed inline. No wasted 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields, and with a single required parameter at full schema coverage the invocation contract is fully specified. The only dependency, the API key, is stated up front.

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 100% and the single 'oab' parameter already documents the 'UF + número' format with an example 'MS12345'. The description only restates that lookup is by OAB, adding no syntax or validation detail beyond the 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 names a specific verb+resource ('Mostra a ficha pública do advogado pela OAB') and enumerates exactly what is returned (nome, inscrição, situação, cidade/UF). It is unmistakable against siblings like ficha_processo, which cover a different entity.

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 bracketed prerequisite '[Avançado: exige BITBUSCA_API_KEY]' tells the agent it needs a paid/advanced key, and 'sem telefone, e-mail nem endereço' implicitly warns against using it for contact data. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative for related lookups.

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