buscar_normas_cvm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one non-obvious behavior: the tool may write a local cache ("Pode gravar cache local"), which signals a side effect and possible staleness. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, result-size limits, and whether the cache is user-visible, so the disclosure is partial.

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 the behavioral note second; no wasted words. It is arguably too terse for a two-parameter search tool, but the sizing itself is efficient.

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 with zero annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and no routing guidance against three close siblings, the description leaves too much for the agent to infer before calling.

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%: neither "q" nor "tipo" is documented in the schema or the description. The verb "busca" lets an agent weakly infer that "q" is a query string, but "tipo" (a type filter) is completely unexplained and its valid values are unknown.

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?

"Busca normas na CVM" gives a specific verb (search) and resource (CVM regulations), so the agent knows the domain immediately. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like buscar_normas_bcb or buscar_legislacao, leaving the agent to guess which regulator's corpus this covers.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the very similar buscar_normas_bcb or buscar_legislacao siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer selection 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.