listar_normas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing that the RESPONSE SHAPE changes with the parameters (counts vs. a listed set), which is the single most important behavioral fact for this tool.

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 conveys the entire drill-down contract with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description's main job is the drill-down logic, which it delivers. The remaining gap is that the uf/orgao/municipio filters and pagination are never mentioned in prose, leaving the agent to discover them from the schema alone.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining the conditional semantics of esfera/tipo/ano — that each successive filter changes what is returned. It says nothing about uf, orgao, municipio, limite or offset, which the schema covers on its own.

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 and resource ('Navega pelo acervo') and precisely describes the drill-down shape of the operation (sem filtros → por esfera → por tipo → por ano → lista). This clearly separates it from search-style siblings like buscar_norma or buscar_texto, though no sibling is named 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?

The progressive filter chain implicitly tells the agent this is the exploratory/browse entry point that feeds the other tools, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'use buscar_norma instead when…' guidance. An agent must infer the distinction from behavior alone.

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