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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a return-shape summary, but that information is also available in the output schema, and no additional behavioral context such as auth needs, rate limits, or pagination is provided.

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 four efficient sentences with no filler: purpose first, then parameter behavior, then return shape, then the sibling alternative. Every sentence contributes to selecting or invoking the tool correctly.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, 100% schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, return shape, and the nearest sibling alternative. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single parameter is already documented in the schema, including its enum values and default. The description restates the same choices and expands 'SF'/'CN' to 'Senado Federal'/'Congresso Nacional', adding only marginal meaning beyond the structured field.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lista os membros da Mesa Diretora') and clarifies the exact subset with parenthetical roles. It also names a sibling tool for a related but different need, letting an agent distinguish this from senado_liderancas without opening either schema.

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?

Explains how the `casa` parameter selects between the Senate and Congress Mesa, and explicitly routes party-leadership queries to senado_liderancas. It does not give broader when-not-to-use guidance, but the alternative for the closest adjacent need is clear.

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