pesquisar_jurisprudencia

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one non-obvious behavior ('Pode gravar cache local') and a hard limit (limite máximo: 50), which are genuine additions. However, there is no mention of auth needs, rate limits, pagination behavior despite a cursor param, or cost of the operation.

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?

It is short and the purpose is front-loaded, with no filler sentences. The constraint list is choppy and fragmented ('limite máximo: 50. tribunais: stj|...') rather than integrated, and the brevity comes at the cost of useful detail.

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, which relieves some burden. Still, for a 7-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves key inputs (date range, cursor, authority filter) undefined, making correct invocation a guess.

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 7 undocumented parameters. It only mentions 'limite' and 'tribunais', and both facts (max 50, the enum values) are already present in the schema constraints, so no real meaning is added. The core q, ate, desde, cursor, and autoridade_min remain entirely unexplained.

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 ('Pesquisa jurisprudência') and names the source courts (STJ, TCU, TJSP, CVM Colegiado). This distinguishes it from buscar_legislacao (legislation) by resource, though the verb overlaps with several sibling search tools. Clear but differentiation from siblings is left largely implicit.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The list of courts hints at scope but does not tell an agent when this tool is the right choice versus buscar_legislacao or obter_decisao.

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