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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the text is not truncated or paginated, can be tens of KB, and an invalid or textless speech returns an error. There is no contradiction with the 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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core purpose first, then the return format and error behavior, then the required workflow and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place without filler.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description covers the return object, payload size and truncation behavior, error conditions, and how to obtain the prerequisite code. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing, especially with an output schema available.

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 fully describes the only parameter, including its source tools and one-per-speech nature, so the description adds little new parameter-level meaning. The extra detail about error behavior is behavioral transparency rather than parameter semantics, so the high schema coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: it obtains the full text ('texto integral') of a single pronunciamento using `codigoPronunciamento`. It also distinguishes itself from sibling list/filter tools by explaining that the others return summaries, dates, and authors, while this one returns the full transcript.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: obtain the `codigoPronunciamento` first via `senado_discursos_senador` or `senado_discursos_plenario`, then use this tool for the full text. It also states when not to use it—for listing or filtering—and names the alternative tools for that purpose.

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