metadados_norma

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses what the return payload contains (revocation links, DOU publications, Senate-recorded amendments), which is real behavioral value. However it is silent on whether the tool is read-only, what happens when all four optional filters are omitted (return everything? error?), and whether results are paginated or ambiguous matches are resolved.

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 front-loaded sentence led by 'Ficha da norma' followed by a field enumeration. The list is long but each item is informative given there is no output schema, so little is wasted; it could still be tightened by grouping versions/publications/revocations.

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 all-optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition should explain query modes and return shape. It covers the returned fields but leaves the critical question — how the four optional inputs combine and what happens with none supplied — unanswered, so an agent cannot call it confidently.

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% — the four parameters (ano, urn, tipo, numero) have bare titles only. The description mentions 'URN' as a field of the returned ficha but never explains it as an input, and gives no meaning at all for ano, tipo, or numero (e.g. accepted format for 'tipo' such as 'LEI', or whether numero is a string id). With zero schema coverage the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 ('Ficha da norma') and enumerates its contents (URN, nome, apelidos, ementa, versões, revogações, publicações DOU, alterações), so an agent can tell it returns a metadata record rather than the full text offered by siblings like texto_planalto. The gap is that no verb is stated and no sibling is named, so the differentiation from buscar_legislacao and conferir_vigencia is inferred rather than stated.

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: nothing says to call this before or instead of buscar_legislacao to resolve a URN, or instead of texto_planalto to read the actual law. No alternative is mentioned and no prerequisites (e.g. that a URN or tipo+numero+ano combination is needed) are given.

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