ler_ato

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the text comes from the portal's notes database, not the typeset PDF, and that it returns plain text. This caveat is important for understanding the tool's output limitations and differentiates it from the PDF-based alternative.

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 succinct: one purpose statement, a short Args section, and a single caveat sentence. It is well-structured with clear labels ('Args', 'Atenção') and avoids redundant filler, making it easy to scan.

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 simple read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, parameter source, data source caveat, and an alternative tool. It provides all essential information for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, including the nuance about formal use.

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 input schema provides only the parameter name 'uuid' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that uuid is the act identifier from the `uuid_ato` field of `buscar_conteudo` results, adding critical provenance and context.

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 action: 'Retorna o texto integral de um ato publicado no DOE-PI, em texto plano, direto da base do portal' – clearly stating verb, resource, and output format. It distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with 'sem precisar baixar o PDF da edição' and referencing `buscar_conteudo` for obtaining the UUID.

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 explicitly tells the user how to obtain the UUID ('obtido no campo `uuid_ato` dos resultados de `buscar_conteudo`) and when to use an alternative ('Para citação formal ou juntada, baixe a edição com `baixar_edicao`'). This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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