Busca avançada de marca (booleana/fuzzy, apresentação, natureza)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/destructive=false, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: a 6h local cache, the forcar_atualizacao bypass, and that salvar_html writes a readable HTML report to disk and returns its path. It does not describe pagination or return shape, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 tight paragraphs with the capability summary front-loaded and the routing guidance second; the long parenthetical enumerations of apresentação/natureza are informative rather than wasteful. Slightly dense but no filler sentences.

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?

For a 9-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers what it searches, how to select it, cache/save behavior, and the live-data scope. Return-format details are the only meaningful omission, and those are minor for a search tool whose annotations establish it as a safe read.

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% and each parameter is already well documented (boolean vs fuzzy, enums, Nice class, page sizes). The description's parameter mentions largely restate the schema rather than adding new syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 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 (Busca avançada) and resource (marcas no pePI/INPI), and explicitly positions itself as the advanced counterpart to the basic search. An agent can distinguish it from inpi_search_by_mark without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the sibling inpi_search_by_mark and the conditions that select this tool instead (basic search too imprecise, or need to filter by apresentação/natureza), including a concrete example of checking collision among mistas in one class. Nothing left to inference.

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