Buscar no guia (texto ou tag)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: matching is AND across all words, accent- and case-insensitive, and a tag-only/empty call returns the tag index with phases and errors per tag. It does not describe the shape of ordinary search hits.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior and the fallback case before any enumeration, and the examples each earn their place by disambiguating query vs. tag. The inline tag list duplicates the schema enum almost verbatim, which is the only real waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry return-value context, and it at least specifies the no-arg response (tag index with phases and errors). It leaves the fields of a normal search result unstated, a minor gap for a zero-required-parameter read tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by explaining the matching semantics of `query` (all words must appear, accent/case folding) and that `tag` is supplied without the '#'. That is meaning the schema's "Palavras a procurar" does not convey.

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 names a specific verb ("Busca") and a precise resource scope: all guide steps, pitfalls and errors, searchable by free text and/or tag. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the phase-scoped siblings (wa_guide_get_phase, wa_guide_overview) by covering the whole guide, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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 three worked examples map realistic user intents ("Onde fica o Phone Number ID?", "Tudo de coexistência") to concrete parameter choices, which is strong routing guidance, and the no-argument fallback behavior is stated. It stops short of saying when to prefer wa_guide_get_phase or wa_explain_error over this search.

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