buscar_normas_bcb

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one real side effect ('Pode gravar cache local'), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about permissions, result volume, rate limits, or freshness of cached results.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no padding, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing.

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 values need not be described, but for a 2-parameter search tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the definition omits query syntax, the meaning of 'tipo', and any routing guidance to sibling search tools.

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 2 parameters. The description never explains 'q' (query syntax, length limits) or 'tipo' (what values are accepted, whether it filters by norm type), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('Busca normativos no BCB/CMN'), which is clear and scoped to BCB/CMN regulations. The domain scope implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling buscar_normas_cvm, 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives such as buscar_normas_cvm or buscar_legislacao. The agent must infer that this is the BCB/CMN-specific search from the tool name alone.

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