consultar_resolucao_cfm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what is returned (fields, excerpt, source URL) and how revoked resolutions are marked, and it adds a caution about not treating excerpts as official CFM positions. It could be slightly more explicit about read-only/no side effects, but the 'Consulta' verb plus the output behavior are sufficient.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then the return behavior, then a practical caution, then a compact Args block. Every sentence adds information; no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it tells the agent when to use it, what topic to provide, what the output includes, and how revocations are represented. Nothing critical 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must define both parameters. It does so clearly: 'tema' with concrete examples and 'apenas_vigentes' with its filtering behavior.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: consulting CFM resolutions by theme. It also defines the search scope and outputs, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling monitorar_novas_resolucoes.

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 clear context: it is the search tool for existing CFM resolutions on a topic, with examples of valid temas. It does not explicitly name the sibling as the alternative for monitoring new resolutions, so it misses an explicit when-not-to-use statement.

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