buscar_legislacao

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it defines the status semantics (ok / parcial / indisponivel, clarifying that indisponivel is not the same as inexistência), explains nao_indexado for external-source items, and explicitly disclaims vigência. It also discloses a side effect ('Pode gravar cache local') and the hard limit of 50, none of which the schema or annotations convey.

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?

Information-dense and front-loaded: the search scope and 'returns candidates, not legal validity' caveat come first, followed by status semantics and the routing hint. The line-broken list style is slightly ragged but every clause carries substantive 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, yet the description still usefully enumerates status values and the nao_indexado flag, and it discloses the cache write side effect that no annotation covers. Given the tool's moderate complexity (external network sources, offline mode, pagination), only the pagination/cursor behavior and the distinction from the source-specific siblings are 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 0%, so the description has to compensate and only partly does: it explains `fonte` restricts to one source, `data` selects the redação, and repeats the 50 cap for `limite`. The required `q` and especially `cursor` (pagination, only inferable) are left undocumented, so a quarter to half of the parameter space remains opaque.

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 ('Busca legislação e normas') plus the scope (local index, falling back to official sources named explicitly: Planalto, CVM, BCB/CMN, Senado). It also states the output nature ('Devolve CANDIDATOS'). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling tools buscar_normas_cvm and buscar_normas_bcb, which appear to overlap with its fonte-scoped behavior, leaving some ambiguity about which entry point to choose.

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?

Gives an explicit usage chain: 'Use para descobrir a norma; depois obter_dispositivo e verificar_citacao', which tells the agent this is a discovery step and names the follow-up tools. It also sets the expectation 'não vigência nem prova'. It stops short of when NOT to use it (e.g. versus the source-specific buscar_normas_cvm/bcb siblings).

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