consultar_prazos_referencia

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a local curated table, warns against calculating final dates, and mentions optional filtering. However, it lacks details on data freshness, update frequency, or what happens when the filter is applied. The warning is useful but incomplete.

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 concise with three short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and source, the second adds optional filter capability, and the third clarifies usage constraint. No redundant 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: source (curated table), scope (civil deadlines), usage (reference only, no date calculation), and filter availability. It is nearly complete, though could specify what the output looks like (e.g., list of deadlines).

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 schema has only one optional string parameter 'ato', but the description mentions filtering by 'ato/tipo/artigo' (act/type/article), suggesting parameters beyond what is defined. This adds meaning but creates ambiguity about how these filters work given the single parameter. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but is unclear.

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 clearly states it is a curated local table of civil deadlines (CPC) with legal basis, serving as the single source for product deadlines. The verb 'consultar' and the explanation 'Referência para conferência do advogado' make the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'analisar_caso_civel' by focusing on reference only.

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 description gives implicit guidance by stating 'nunca calcule data final' (never calculate final date), implying it is for reference only, not for computation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'analisar_caso_civel' which might handle deadline calculations, nor does it state when to use this versus other search tools.

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