baixar_edicao

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses the key side effect (saving the PDF to ~/Downloads) and default naming behavior. It does not cover error handling, overwrite behavior, or return values, but these are less critical for a download tool and the core behavior is well explained.

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 highly concise, front-loading the purpose and usage guidance in the first sentence, followed by a clear and compact Args section. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 the tool's low complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, when to use, alternatives, parameter semantics, and source of required data. It is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool without additional information.

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?

Even though the schema has 0% description coverage, the description thoroughly explains both parameters: `url_pdf` (source and how to obtain it) and `nome_arquivo` (optional, default behavior). This goes beyond the schema and effectively compensates for the lack of structured descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Baixa') and clearly identifies the resource (official PDF of a DOE-PI edition) and destination (~/Downloads). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that for reading, one should prefer `ler_ato`.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('apenas quando o usuário precisar do documento em si') and provides a clear alternative (`ler_ato` for reading). It also indicates where to obtain the required `url_pdf` from sibling tools (`listar_edicoes` or `buscar_conteudo`).

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