Autoria das normas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine provenance caveat ('Vem da base inicial do histórico; as datas vêm do cabeçalho'), warning that data may be partial — useful, though cryptically worded and silent on pagination or completeness limits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the dual capability, followed by a single provenance caveat. No filler and nothing repeated from the title.

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?

Covers both query modes for a tool with five optional parameters and no required ones, which is the key thing an agent needs. The one gap is that it never says what happens if neither referencia nor signatario is supplied, leaving the zero-argument path undefined.

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 100%, including the enum for formato and the mutual-exclusion note on referencia/signatario, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds nothing about formato, limite or cursor beyond what the schema already states; baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource with two clear modes: 'Mostra quem assinou uma norma (autor, coautores e origem da autoria)' or 'lista as normas de um signatário'. An agent can tell this returns authorship data rather than norm text, but the description never names or contrasts with siblings like leis_obter or leis_buscar.

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 'ou' structure implies two usage paths and the description hints at choosing referencia vs signatario, but that routing is already spelled out in the schema. There is no explicit when-not guidance nor any mention of the sibling tools that overlap (e.g., obtaining the norm itself).

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