alteracoes_artigo

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does very little with it. It never states that this is a read-only lookup, what the response shape is, whether results are paginated, or which sphere (Senate only vs. also Câmara) the data covers beyond the single word 'Senado'.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no filler, and the scoping qualifier ('para um artigo específico') sits where the reader needs it. It is short only because content is missing, not because it is padded.

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 five-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition is far too thin — an agent has no idea what fields come back or how the identifier filters interact. The single sentence does not compensate for any of the missing structure.

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% across five parameters, and the description only implies the role of 'artigo' via 'para um artigo específico'. The four optional filters — ano, urn, tipo, numero — get no explanation anywhere, so an agent must guess which identifiers combine with which.

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 names a specific resource set — amendments, revocations and cross-references (alterações, revogações, remissões) for a given article — and bounds it to what the Senate registers, so an agent can tell it is a legislative-history lookup rather than a plain text fetch. It lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from siblings such as conferir_vigencia or artigo_planalto, keeping it below a 5.

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 alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to call it before or after texto_planalto/artigo_planalto, or how it differs from conferir_vigencia when checking whether an article is still in force.

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