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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the exact returned object shape (`{ casa, mesa, count, membros }`) and the fields per member, which goes beyond the bare 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: it states the purpose, explains the parameter, summarizes the return shape, and routes to an alternative in only three sentences. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids repetitive detail.

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, single-parameter tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: purpose, parameter selection, return structure, and the relevant sibling alternative. Nothing important 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 documents `casa` with an enum and per-value descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the default value (`padrão senado`) and clarifies the meaning of each choice, reinforcing semantic understanding even though the schema coverage is 100%.

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 names the exact resource ('membros da Mesa Diretora') along with the types of members (presidente, vice-presidentes, secretários). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `senado_liderancas` by explicitly pointing leadership queries there.

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 explicitly explains when to choose each value of `casa` — `senado` for the Senado Federal and `congresso` for the Congresso Nacional. It also gives a clear 'do not use this for leadership' pointer to `senado_liderancas`, making the alternative explicit.

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