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

Even with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already present, the description adds substantial behavioral context: `finalidade` is null with an `aviso` for permanent commissions, the sigla is resolved internally to a numeric code, and the exact output shape per `secao` is disclosed. This goes well beyond what the annotations provide.

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 main action and then uses dense, structured inline JSON to convey output shapes and caveats. Every sentence contributes; it is a bit long, but the bulk is informative rather than redundant.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—two modes, conditional null fields, an internal sigla resolution—the description is remarkably complete. It explains the presence or absence of `finalidade`, the member object structure, and how to discover valid input, leaving little ambiguity for the agent.

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 covers both parameters at 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default `secao` behavior, what each section returns, and how `sigla` gets resolved—plus the explicit pointer to `senado_listar_comissoes` for valid values. That lifts it above mere schema restatement.

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 verb and resource ('Obtém dados de uma comissão pela sigla') and explicitly distinguishes the two modes (`resumo` vs `membros`). It also ties the discovery of the `sigla` to the sibling `senado_listar_comissoes`, making it easy to tell this tool apart from the many other comissão-related siblings.

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 clearly conveys when to use this tool (to fetch details of a single commission by sigla and section) and points the agent to `senado_listar_comissoes` for discovering the sigla. It does not, however, explicitly state when NOT to use it relative to siblings like `senado_reunioes_comissao` or `senado_agenda_comissoes`, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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