Ler norma ou dispositivo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavior beyond that: struck-through text is omitted by default with a warning, pagination is per article, and ambiguous citations return candidate matches instead of failing. It does not say what a paginated response contains beyond the cursor reference.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and mode, then the default omission behavior, then the ambiguity fallback. No filler.

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 an 11-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the key decision points (reference forms, whole-norm vs. article, struck-text default, ambiguity). The main gap is return shape — e.g., that the response carries a next cursor — which is left to the parameter docs.

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%, so every parameter (uf, esfera, bloco, artigo precedence, cursor, incluir_tachado) is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the reference forms and the pagination mode, adding no syntax or precedence detail beyond what the schema provides — baseline 3.

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 (lê) and resource (norma/dispositivo) plus the accepted reference forms (caminho, URN, citação) and the two read modes (inteira paginada por artigo vs. dispositivo isolado). It does not name the sibling leis_buscar in the description itself, so differentiation from search is only implied (the path link appears in the schema).

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?

Usage is implied: this is the retrieval tool for a known norm, as opposed to searching. The ambiguous-citation fallback ('devolve candidatos') tells the agent what happens but not explicitly when to prefer leis_buscar over this tool or how to recover from ambiguity. No explicit exclusions.

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