buscar_sumulas

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only explains the search behavior, not side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. Minimal disclosure beyond the obvious.

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 concise (two main sentences plus structured Args/Returns), front-loads the key purpose, and uses clear formatting. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple search tool with few parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers functionality, return fields, and parameter details. Could mention pagination but limite param addresses limit.

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 description significantly adds meaning beyond the schema titles, explaining each parameter's purpose, format, and defaults. For example, 'query' is terms, 'limite' has range and default, 'tribunal' is optional with examples.

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 tool name and description clearly indicate it searches for 'sumulas' (precedents) on JusBrasil, using a specific filter. It is distinct from sibling 'buscar_jurisprudencia' which likely searches general jurisprudence, though not explicitly stated.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. The description merely states what it does without contextual advice.

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