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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds valuable behavioral caveats: several fields are always null, why they are null, and how status reflects the consultation lifecycle. It also explains that comentarios is always null because the page lacks that feature.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential return details, then important null-field caveats, and finally sourcing instructions. Every sentence earns its place and none of it is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

The description is complete for a single-parameter read-only tool: it covers prerequisites, return shape, known null behavior, and points to the right sibling tools. With an output schema and safety annotations also present, nothing necessary for correct invocation 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 schema already thoroughly documents the single id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by telling the agent exactly where to get the id from, which is meaningful practical guidance beyond the schema's type 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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Obtém o detalhe de uma consulta pública específica do e-Cidadania.' It clearly differentiates from the listing/analysis siblings by requiring an id obtained from them, so the agent knows this is the detail-by-id tool.

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 explicitly tells the agent to obtain the id beforehand via 'senado_ecidadania_listar_consultas' or 'senado_ecidadania_consultas_analise', establishing a clear when-to-use workflow. This is more concrete than most tool descriptions.

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