listar_edicoes

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

Despite having no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral details: ordering (most recent to oldest), archive scope (starts at edition 240/2022), and date format restrictions (only yyyy-mm-dd). These limitations go beyond basic expectations and help the agent understand the tool's boundaries.

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 front-loaded summary sentence clearly states the tool's purpose, followed by a structured Args block. While slightly detailed, every piece of information serves a purpose, and the formatting improves scannability. No redundant content was introduced.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, ordering, output link, and archive limitation. Since there is no output schema, it would benefit from explicitly stating the full item structure, but for a filtering/listing tool it is reasonably 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 input schema provides only names and types with zero coverage in its descriptions, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning, format, example values, default behavior, and edge cases (e.g., dd/mm/yyyy does not work; numero returns matches across all years). This adds substantial value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool lists editions of the Piauí State Official Diary, ordered from most recent to oldest, with a PDF link for each. This distinguishes it from siblings like ler_ato (read act), baixar_edicao (download edition), and buscar_conteudo (search content) by defining the listing action and resource.

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 provides clear guidance on how to use the optional filters (data, numero, quantidade) with examples and defaults, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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