ler

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: partial-read semantics for `secao` (a single header/function/class) and the truncation contract ("Se o texto for cortado, a resposta lista as seções disponíveis").

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two parameters' semantics. Efficient, with no filler, though the truncation note could be tighter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. The description adds the input formats, the cheap partial-read mode, and the truncation contract — nearly complete, with `max_caracteres` the only notable omission.

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 carries the burden. It documents `nota` (accepted formats) and `secao` (what subset it returns) well, but `max_caracteres` is never mentioned in either the schema or the description, leaving one of three params fully undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Lê uma nota/arquivo") and clarifies that `nota` accepts an #id from `buscar`, a path, filename or title. This distinguishes it from the search sibling `buscar`, though it never explicitly contrasts with `ler_varios`, so the single-vs-multiple distinction is left implicit.

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 rather than stated: it points to `buscar` as the source of the #id and hints that `secao` is "bem mais barato" (much cheaper), nudging toward partial reads. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus `ler_varios` or `caminho`.

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