br_get_norma_texto

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

Annotations already indicate it's read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the text includes caput and all nested sub-elements concatenated in document order, and it is not a summary. It also clarifies error behavior on incorrect input. No contradictions with 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. The first sentence states the core function, the second clarifies what the text includes and excludes. No unnecessary words. Efficiently front-loaded with the key action.

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 (not shown), high schema coverage, and detailed annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool returns, how parameters should be used, and error behavior. No apparent gaps.

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 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters. The description reinforces the meaning of 'dispositivo' (must come from br_get_norma_index, no guessing) but does not add new parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema. Baseline is 3, raised to 4 for the explicit warning.

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 it fetches the real text of one dispositivo (article or header) of a Norma Juridica, distinguishing it from siblings like br_get_norma_index (which returns an index) and br_get_norma (which likely returns the whole norma). The specific verb 'fetch real text' and the scope 'one dispositivo' provide precise purpose.

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 warns against guessing the dispositivo suffix and specifies that a wrong suffix returns 'not_found' with no fallback, guiding correct usage. It implies this tool is for detailed text extraction, but does not explicitly mention when to use it over siblings such as br_get_norma or br_get_norma_index. Still, the guidance is clear and helpful.

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