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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavioral facts: the list mixes senators, deputies, and former parliamentarians; a person may appear twice with distinct codes; results are ordered by `quantidadeMaterias`; and the default/max limits are stated. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: purpose, semantic warning, sibling disambiguation, return shape, filters, limits, and next-step usage. The most critical caveat is front-loaded immediately after the verb phrase.

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 read-only list tool, the description is complete: it covers what is returned, what filters are available, ordering behavior, the semantic trap, and how to chain the returned code into related tools. Nothing essential is missing.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful nuance beyond the schema: `nome` is a partial search 'sem acento', and it restates optionality and limits in a way that reinforces correct usage.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Lista parlamentares autores de processos em tramitação' and adds ordering by production. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling senado_listar_senadores by explicitly warning not to use it as a list of current senators.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and an explicit alternative: 'não use como lista de senadores em exercício (para isso, senado_listar_senadores)'. It also explains the semantic trap ('atual' means 'with process still in progress', not 'current mandate') and suggests downstream uses for the returned `codigo`.

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