resolver_urn_lexml

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the operation is deterministic, does not consult the network, and that opening the returned URL remains subject to portal availability and security verification. This is strong, pertinent behavioral context.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds necessary behavioral caveats without 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 one-parameter, deterministic tool with an output schema, the description covers the operation, network behavior, and the post-resolution caveat. The output schema handles return-value details, so no critical calling information 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 schema has no description for the single parameter `urn`, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds the domain meaning that the URN must be a Brazilian LEX URN, but it does not specify expected format, examples, or normalization behavior, so it only partially compensates for the gap.

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 action — validating a Brazilian LEX URN and returning its official resolver — which clearly identifies the tool's function. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pesquisar_lexml, which suggests searching rather than resolving a URN.

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 description implies usage when a Brazilian LEX URN needs validation and resolution, and the deterministic/no-network note helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as pesquisar_lexml, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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