obter_pagina

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the returned text is raw extraction/OCR (implying possible OCR noise) and that it is the authoritative source for validating citations. However, it says nothing about error handling, missing pages, permissions, or rate limits, so it adds only partial behavioral context.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler: the first front-loads what is returned, the second combines the use case with the one non-obvious parameter detail. Everything earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting need not be restated, and the description adds the key content-type characterization. The main gap is the undocumented 'caso' and 'pagina' parameters for a 3-required-param tool with no annotation support.

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 coverage is 0% and all three params are required, so the description must compensate. It documents 'arquivo' well (accepts name, stem, or relative path as shown in the citation), but 'caso' and 'pagina' receive no explanation at all, leaving two of three parameters dependent on inference.

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?

States a specific verb (obter) and resource (page text), and specifies the return is literal/complete OCR text, which is more precise than the name alone. It links itself to the search flow ('a fonte que valida a busca'), giving some differentiation from siblings like buscar, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the very similar abrir_pagina sibling.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use directive with rationale: 'Use para verificar citações antes de afirmar.' This is a clear usage context rather than a mere implication, but no alternatives (e.g., abrir_pagina) or when-not conditions are named.

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