estatisticas_corpus_juridico

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and 'Mostra' clearly signals a read-only operation on a 'banco jurídico local,' implying no external calls or mutations. It also discloses what the output covers. It does not mention auth or performance, but for a zero-parameter local status tool the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 sentence with a front-loaded verb and concrete output categories; no filler or redundancy.

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 no-parameter informational tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential output dimensions and clearly signals it inspects the local corpus. It is slightly weaker on guiding the agent to choose it over sibling corpus tools, but that is a usage-guideline gap rather than a completeness gap for the call itself.

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?

There are no parameters, so the input schema is complete and there is nothing for the description to clarify. The description instead adds meaning about the output dimensions, which is appropriate.

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 verb ('Mostra'), a resource ('banco jurídico local'), and the exact information returned (coverage, dates, hashes, location). This clearly separates it from siblings like listar_fontes_corpus_juridico and consultar_corpus_juridico, which cover different aspects of the corpus.

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 about when to use this tool instead of the closely related corpus tools. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or a recommended context such as checking corpus health before synchronization.

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