buscar_norma

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the exact return payload (header metadata including 'revogada' and 'versão do texto', repository path, official link), which tells the agent what it will get back.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs the action and the return contents with no filler. Slightly dense but every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema present and full parameter coverage, the description need only frame the tool's role, which it does. The return-value enumeration is mildly redundant with the output schema but harmless, and nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (uf, ano, tipo, esfera, limite, numero, referencia) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Localiza') and resource ('uma norma') and enumerates what is returned (cabeçalho metadata, repository path, official source link). It is clearly distinct from ler_artigo and buscar_texto by implication, though it never names the siblings to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'Localiza' and the returned metadata; there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over listar_normas or buscar_texto, nor guidance on choosing between the 'referencia' and 'numero' lookup paths.

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