buscar_normas_bcb

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that the API is queried live, that results are candidates, that status ok|parcial|indisponivel means source/network/offline failure rather than zero hits, that some circulars may lack device structure, and that a local cache may be written. Remaining gaps are pagination, result volume, and authentication requirements.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line and the behavioral caveats follow. The parenthetical status gloss is dense but each clause carries information; a few items (the circular JSON note) are phrased elliptically enough to slow an agent down.

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 two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the definition covers the important non-obvious behavior: live querying, candidate results, degraded-source semantics, cache writes, and field provenance for situação/revogação. What is missing – query syntax and result limits – is modest given an output schema already exists.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains `tipo` ('restringe a espécie') but does not say what values are accepted or how matching works, and `q` is never described (query syntax, phrase support, max 4000 chars go unmentioned). Partial compensation only.

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?

The description names a specific verb ('Busca') and resource ('normativos do BCB e do CMN') and enumerates the document species (resoluções, circulares, cartas circulares, instruções normativas). The explicit source scope (BCB/CMN) cleanly separates it from the sibling buscar_normas_cvm and the jurisprudence tools without needing 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?

Usage is only implied by the source scope; there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over buscar_legislacao or buscar_normas_cvm, nor any 'do not use for X' exclusion. The note about 'CANDIDATOS' and the status values does tell the agent what to expect, which shapes usage indirectly but leaves selection to inference.

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