consultar_protocolo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and mostly delivers: it lists what is returned (nome, status, portaria, PDF links, extracted sections) and the multiplicity behavior (returns all protocols when several exist). It does not mention error cases, freshness guarantees, or auth/rate limits, but for a read-only lookup it is considerably more transparent than a generic 'updates settings' description.

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 compact: a purpose sentence, a return-behavior paragraph, and an Args block, all in Portuguese with no filler. The most informative content (returned fields and multi-protocol behavior) comes before the parameter details.

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 read-only tool with an output schema present, the description covers the query concept, the input semantics, the returns, and an edge case (multiple protocols). The main gap is the absence of any relationship to the sibling tool and of failure/ambiguity behavior, which keeps it slightly short of fully complete.

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 only provides type and title, but the description adds a dedicated Args section defining doenca_ou_condicao as the disease or condition name and giving the concrete example 'asma'. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 first sentence names the action ('Consulta') and the resource ('PCDT vigente do Ministério da Saúde') and specifies the target ('doença ou condição'). However, it never mentions the sibling resumir_conduta, so the agent isn't given an explicit way to tell them apart beyond the verb.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose consultar_protocolo over resumir_conduta or any alternatives, and it states no exclusions or prerequisites. The only contextual clue is the behavior of returning multiple protocols with the choice left to the questioner, which is not an explicit usage rule.

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