buscar_jurisprudencia

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the periodo filter uses relative dates (not exact), the tribunal filter accepts multiple values separated by commas, and the return format is a list of dicts with specific fields. This goes beyond basic functionality, but does not mention rate limits, authentication, or side effects (likely none).

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, front-loading the purpose. It is appropriately sized but could be slightly more concise—some parameter descriptions are verbose (e.g., tribunal notes). However, no sentence is wasted, and the format aids readability.

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 complexity (6 parameters, need for output description) and presence of an output schema (mentioned as returning list of dicts), the description is thorough. It covers all parameters and return values. Minor gaps: no mention of error cases or pagination beyond limite, but overall adequate.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage (no descriptions in schema properties). The tool description compensates fully by explaining each parameter with examples, default values, allowed values (e.g., tribunal values: 'STF', 'STJ', etc.), and behavior (e.g., periodo relative). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 'Pesquisa jurisprudencia no JusBrasil, com filtros reais do site,' specifying the action (search jurisprudence), source (JusBrasil), and distinguishing feature (real site filters). It differentiates from sibling tools like buscar_sumulas (search summaries) and ler_decisao (read decision), which have different purposes.

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 explains parameters and acceptable values, providing context on when to use filters. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. There is no direct comparison to siblings, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and description.

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