Texto integral da publicação

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds meaningful behavior: the API-key/advanced-tier requirement and the fact that the response includes parties and lawyers, not just raw text. It does not mention output size, rate limits, or how pagination behaves, which would have earned a 5.

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 sentence with the access prerequisite bracketed and front-loaded, followed immediately by what the tool returns. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what is returned (full text plus parties/lawyers), the auth requirement, and implicitly the retrieval pattern. A note that long texts are paginated via the parte parameter would close the remaining gap.

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 schema already explains id, data and the pagination-oriented parte parameter thoroughly. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond implying the id comes from a search, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ("Traz o texto completo") and a specific resource ("uma publicação do DJEN"), plus the payload contents (partes e advogados). It implicitly contrasts with the search sibling buscar_publicacoes_djen, but never names it outright, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

It discloses a real prerequisite ("exige BITBUSCA_API_KEY") and, via the schema, that an id from a prior search is needed, which tells an agent when the tool is callable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g. buscar_publicacoes_djen for listings vs. this for full text).

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