verificar_citacao

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: it may write a local cache (a side effect), support remains not_assessed (a partial-verification caveat), and proposicao is only echoed rather than processed. These are exactly the kind of non-structural facts an agent needs. It stops short of permissions or failure semantics.

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?

Three short, front-loaded lines with no filler; the purpose statement leads and the caveats follow. Telegraphic style is efficient, though the terse fragments slightly reduce readability for a non-Portuguese reader.

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 no explanation, and key behavioral quirks (cache write, not_assessed support, echoed proposicao) are covered. What is missing is the parameter-level semantics for data/trecho/citacao and any routing guidance versus the many sibling verification 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%, so the description must compensate for all five parameters. It only touches two: modo (redundant with the enum) and proposicao (the echo note, which is genuinely useful). data, trecho, and citacao receive no semantic explanation anywhere, leaving the majority of inputs undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb (verifica) and resource (citação) plus the exact dimensions checked (identity/text/temporal/support) and the reference source (captura oficial). This is far more concrete than a bare 'verify' statement. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like resolver_citacao or verificar_texto, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 and no mention of when to prefer resolver_citacao, buscar_legislacao, or verificar_texto instead. The only usage-adjacent line lists modo values, which merely restates the schema enum rather than advising selection.

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