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 meaningful work: it discloses a side effect ('Pode gravar cache local' — may write local cache) and an important epistemic caveat ('Retorna candidatos, não vigência jurídica' — returns candidates, not legal validity). It stops short of permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior.

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?

Three short lines with no padding; the core purpose is front-loaded and the caveats follow. It is efficient, though extremely terse relative to the tool's five parameters.

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, so return formatting need not be explained, and the cache/validity caveats cover behavior. However, for a multi-source search with cursor-based pagination and a source enum, the description leaves too many call-critical parameters (fonte, cursor, data) unexplained to be complete.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'limite máximo: 50' — which merely repeats the schema's maximum of 50. The key semantics of q, data, fonte (including the cryptic '__somente_local__' enum value) and cursor are left entirely undocumented.

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') plus the mechanism (local index, then official connectors as fallback), so an agent knows this is a general legislation search rather than a source-specific sibling. It does not explicitly name or contrast with buscar_normas_cvm/buscar_normas_bcb/pesquisar_jurisprudencia, which would have made it a 5.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not guidance is given. The agent is not told how this general legislation search relates to the source-specific siblings (buscar_normas_cvm, buscar_normas_bcb) or to obter_dispositivo; the fallback behavior is internal mechanism, not a selection rule.

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