auditar_citacoes_juridicas

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal a non-obvious behavioral trait: the tool rejects aggregators, isolated LexML, and jurisprudence without official full text. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it mutates anything, or what happens with accepted citations.

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 one sentence with no filler, and the key restriction is front-loaded. It is appropriately short for a one-parameter tool, though the brevity borders on cryptic.

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-value documentation is not required, and the tool is structurally simple. Even so, the description omits the main action and input structure, leaving too much to inference. The refusal criteria alone are not a complete operating context.

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 must compensate. It gives domain-level clues about citation source types but does not define any field of the 'citacoes' array objects. This is insufficient for an agent to construct a valid input confidently.

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 states a specific rejection behavior ('Recusa...') for three citation categories, which adds operational detail beyond the tool name. However, it never explicitly says the core action 'audit' or 'validate', so the reader must infer the main purpose from the tool name. It also does not differentiate itself from siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over alternatives; it does not name any sibling or condition. The refusal rule implies a validation context but leaves the selection decision entirely to the agent.

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