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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: both date parameters are required, the format is YYYYMMDD, and the response structure is `{ periodo, count, discursos }` with a detailed field list. It does not mention pagination or maximum date ranges, but the annotated read-only/idempotent hints lower the burden.

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 sentences and front-loads the core purpose and required constraints before mentioning alternatives. The long enumeration of response fields is slightly redundant with the output schema, but it still helps the agent quickly understand the result without opening the schema, so it is acceptable.

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 date-range listing tool with full parameter schema coverage and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it specifies required params, date format, response shape, and sibling routing. Minor gaps like date inclusiveness or pagination behavior exist, but they are not likely to prevent correct invocation.

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 100%, with both parameters already documented as 'Data início/fim (YYYYMMDD)' and validated by a `^\d{8}$` pattern. The description repeats these constraints but adds little semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as inclusiveness of dates or any special date-range behavior.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') and a specific resource ('discursos realizados em plenário num período de datas'), clearly defining the tool's scope. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming senado_discursos_senador and senado_discurso_texto as alternatives for other needs.

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 states exactly when to use this tool (list all plenary speeches in a date range) and provides explicit routing guidance: use senado_discursos_senador for a specific parliamentarian and senado_discurso_texto for full text. This gives an agent clear decision criteria without needing to inspect sibling schemas.

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