ler_artigo

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results include the caput as context, a source link, and warnings when the text is revoked or not yet compiled. The missing piece is failure behavior (what happens for a nonexistent article or ambiguous norma), but the added warnings materially change how an agent should interpret output.

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 that front-loads the core action and packs scope, hierarchy, and return context without waste. No preamble, no restatement of the tool name.

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 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description covers purpose plus the notable return traits (caput context, source link, revocation/uncompiled warnings). It falls short only on error/ambiguity behavior and on routing guidance relative to the three sibling tools.

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% and the property descriptions are already rich (norma accepts '8245/1991', 'CDC', 'CF', repository path; inciso accepts roman or numeral; bloco covers numbering restarts like ADCT). The description only echoes the hierarchy ('artigo, parágrafo, inciso, alínea') without adding format or composition rules, so 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 ('Devolve o texto exato') and resource (artigo, with paragraph/inciso/alinea granularity), plus what accompanies it (caput context, source link, revocation warnings). It is clear what the tool does, but it never contrasts itself with siblings like buscar_texto or buscar_norma, so an agent must infer whether this is a lookup by exact article or a search.

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: the description's emphasis on 'texto exato' plus the artigo/paragrafo/inciso/alinea hierarchy signals it is for fetching one known provision, not for searching. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to buscar_texto for discovery, which is exactly the distinction an agent needs most here.

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