Buscar critérios por palavra-chave

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Filtra' (filters) conveys a read-only, non-destructive operation and indicates the outcome (matching cards), but it stops short of stating matching semantics (e.g., substring vs. exact, case sensitivity) or whether any side effects occur.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the operation, the resource, and an example without any filler. It is appropriately sized for a trivial one-parameter search.

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 simple search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately communicates the returned resource (matching guide cards). It does not detail the return shape or matching behavior, but given the tool's low complexity this is acceptable.

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 input schema already documents the keyword parameter with 100% coverage, including an example. The tool description repeats the same example without adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra semantic value.

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 uses the specific verb 'filtra' (filters) with the resource 'cartões do guia' and makes the search criterion explicit ('palavra-chave'). This clearly conveys what the tool does, though it does not name the sibling tools or explicitly contrast with them.

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 description implies this tool is for finding guide cards based on a keyword, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over get_criterion_details or generate_manual_test_routine. The intended context is inferable from the examples, but exclusions and alternative routing are absent.

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