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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral quirks: the 'descricao' field is truncated at ~2000 characters, 'comentarios' is always null because the page lacks comments, and 'plConvertido' indicates conversion into a bill. This level of detail is excellent for a simple read tool.

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 first, return fields second, then the usage prerequisite. Every sentence adds unique value, and the field list is dense but scannable.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description is complete: it identifies the required input, the key returned fields, important edge-case behavior (truncation and null comments), and how to obtain the id. The annotations and output schema handle the remaining context.

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 the only parameter 'id' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the id comes from the list endpoint but does not add new semantic information about the parameter's format or constraints beyond the schema.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Obtém o detalhe de uma ideia legislativa do e-Cidadania.' It clearly differentiates this tool from sibling tools like senado_ecidadania_listar_ideias and senado_ecidadania_obter_consulta by naming the exact resource type and level of detail.

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 provides an explicit prerequisite: 'Obtenha o id antes via senado_ecidadania_listar_ideias,' which tells the agent how to acquire the required parameter and when this tool is appropriate. It lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to related 'obter' tools, so it does not fully reach a 5.

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