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

Annotations already cover the safe read-only, idempotent, open-world profile. The description adds behavioral details beyond that: default date is today, the scope is all committees, the siglaComissao filter is optional, and the returned envelope/meeting fields are listed. It does not discuss error cases or rate limits, but those are minor for a simple read-only query.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose and default behavior first, then return shape, then sibling routing. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restating of the schema.

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?

Given the output schema and annotations exist, the description covers all necessary calling context: what the tool does, default behavior, optional filter, return structure, and which sibling tools to use in other situations. An agent can invoke this tool correctly without further inference.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating the default value for data (today), reinforcing the YYYYMMDD format, and clarifying that siglaComissao is an optional filter and how it shapes the result.

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 it retrieves the meeting agenda for all committees on a given date, with an optional committee filter. The verb 'Obtém' plus the resource 'agenda de reuniões de todas as comissões' and the explicit date scope distinguish it from the many sibling tools; it even names related siblings.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use this tool versus alternatives: use senado_reunioes_comissao for the history of a single committee over a period, and senado_reuniao_comissao for meeting details via codigo. This is direct when/when-not guidance with named alternatives.

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