consultar_corpus_juridico

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that results are organized into four explainable perspectives, include a source, and have redundancy reduction, but it does not clarify ordering, filtering behavior, or whether the operation is read-only.

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?

One short sentence with no filler; the core search behavior and unique output features are front-loaded. It is concise, though the brevity sacrifices detail that other dimensions capture.

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?

Given seven parameters, no annotations, and a high-risk ambiguity around search alternatives, the description is too thin to fully guide correct invocation. An output schema exists, which covers return shape, but parameter semantics and selection criteria still depend on external inference.

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 needed to compensate, but it does not explain pergunta, lei, limite, jurisdicao, tipo_fonte, diversidade, or data_referencia. The phrase 'redução de redundância' hints at the diversity parameter, but this is indirect and insufficient.

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 clear action ('Busca') and, combined with the tool name, identifies the resource as the legal corpus. It also specifies a distinctive behavior: retrieving four explainable perspectives with sources and redundancy reduction, which sets it apart from simple listing or synchronization tools.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of related search tools such as pesquisar_lexml or construir_argumento_juridico. The description implies a search use case but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools.

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