obter_decisao

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds some real context by characterizing the result as 'texto oficial delimitado' and stating a 50,000-character ceiling, hinting at truncation behavior. It does not, however, disclose read-only nature, auth needs, or how offset/pagination interacts, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 lines with the purpose front-loaded and no filler; every sentence is brief. The second line is partly redundant with the schema (parte enum, max_chars maximum), which slightly dilutes it, but overall it is tight and readable.

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 explained, and the description covers the two most user-facing parameters. It is nonetheless incomplete for a 4-parameter tool because offset and its interaction with max_chars are never addressed.

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 must compensate for four parameters. It explains parte's options and reiterates the max_chars ceiling (already in the schema's maximum), but leaves id and, critically, offset completely unexplained, so the pagination semantics remain undocumented in both places.

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 (obtém) and resource (decisão), and distinguishes the two main content forms (ementa vs. inteiro teor), which is more than a tautology. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like pesquisar_jurisprudencia or obter_evidencia, leaving the agent to infer that this fetches a single known decision by id.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any reference to the alternative sibling tools. The listing of parte values implies a choice exists, but that merely restates the enum already in the schema rather than advising the agent on when this tool is the right one.

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