buscar_texto

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds the cache vs. on-demand scope distinction and the fact that results are annotated with the article number, but omits behavioral traits like accent/case normalization and the on-demand download side effect (which the schema, not the description, carries).

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 sentence with the scope ('dentro de uma norma, ou nas normas já em cache local') front-loaded before the result-shape clause. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema.

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 7 documented parameters, annotations and an output schema, the description only needs to convey purpose and scope, which it does. The remaining gap is the absence of any sibling routing or pagination/limit expectation, minor given the structured metadata.

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, norma, esfera, limite, consulta) is already documented with its filter semantics and defaults. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning such as filter combination behavior or how empty filters interact, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 resource (um termo dentro de uma norma / nas normas em cache), and adds the output shape (indica o artigo de cada ocorrência). That distinguishes it reasonably from buscar_norma and listar_normas, but it never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than 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?

The phrase 'dentro de uma norma, ou nas normas já em cache local' implicitly tells the agent there are two modes (targeted vs. cache-only), which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing against buscar_norma or ler_artigo for overlapping intent.

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