Detalhes de um critério WCAG

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Retorna' clearly signals a read-only retrieval with no side effects, and the response content is described. It does not cover edge cases like invalid criterion numbers or exact-match behavior, but for a simple lookup tool this is adequate.

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?

The description is a single focused sentence with no filler. The core resource, the returned content, and an example are all included efficiently.

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?

For a tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description gives enough information for an agent to call it correctly. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit output structure, but the described return content makes the call's purpose and result clear.

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?

The schema already fully describes the criterion parameter with an example, and the description repeats the WCAG criterion concept without adding new semantic details. At 100% schema description coverage, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool returns the simplified guide description and ABNT NBR 17225 normative items correlated to a WCAG success criterion. The verb 'Retorna' and the resource are specific, and the example format "1.4.3" disambiguates from the sibling keyword-search tool.

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?

The intended use is inferred: call it when you have a specific WCAG criterion number and need its correlated NBR details. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_criteria_by_keyword or generate_manual_test_routine, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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