br_get_case_tcu

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. Description adds crucial context: the error behavior when colegiado is omitted and ambiguous, and the exact fields returned. This goes beyond annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core function, followed by essential clarification on uniqueness and error handling. No redundant or verbose content.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description fully explains input, output (three text fields), uniqueness, and error case. No gaps remain for this fetch operation.

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%, but description adds significant context: explains that (numero, ano, colegiado) uniquely identify an acordao, and that the same numero/ano recurs across bodies. This enriches understanding beyond basic schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool fetches a single TCU acordao with specific text fields (acordao_texto, relatorio, voto). It distinguishes from sibling tools that target different courts (CARF, STJ, TST) by specifying 'TCU' 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?

Description explains the uniqueness constraint (same numero/ano recurs across bodies) and warns that omitting colegiado when ambiguous causes an error, listing matching bodies. This provides clear guidance on when to include the optional parameter, though it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools.

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