get_legalidade

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses what the tool returns (legal status), the relevant legislation, and the source ('deunobicho.online'). It does not describe the output format or whether the answer is static text, but for a parameterless informational tool this is a minor 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 sentence that front-loads the core action and then includes authoritative legal references and provenance. Every phrase earns its place with no filler.

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, static information tool, the description covers what it returns and the legal basis. It could briefly mention the output shape or an 'informational only' caveat, but nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter meanings to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately adds domain context rather than parameter syntax.

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 ('Retorna'), a precise resource ('status legal do jogo do bicho no Brasil'), and legal references that identify its topic. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which cover results, dreams, groups, and quotes.

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 context of a legal-status query is clear from the resource and legal citations, so an agent can tell when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling covers legal status, so the implied use case is sufficient.

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