texto_planalto

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals pagination and page-size behavior, but does not explain the effects of forcar_ao_vivo, somente_vigente, caching, authentication, error handling, or the fact that this is a read-only retrieval operation.

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 two short sentences with no filler, and the pagination instruction is front-loaded after the purpose statement. It is efficiently structured, though its brevity contributes to the missing parameter guidance noted elsewhere.

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 eight-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain most parameters, how to choose among sibling tools, or what the return value looks like beyond paginated text.

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 eight parameters. The description mentions only inicio and limite_caracteres, leaving ano, url, tipo, numero, forcar_ao_vivo, and somente_vigente completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states a specific resource and scope: full text of a norm on Planalto, delivered in pages of limite_caracteres. It implicitly distinguishes itself from article-level siblings like artigo_planalto by promising the integral text of the norm, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It gives a concrete pagination instruction: use inicio with the value of proximo_inicio to read the next page. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus buscar_legislacao, artigo_planalto, metadados_norma, or other siblings.

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