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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it details the returned fields (placar, `resultado`, `resultadoCodigo`, `secreta`, `votos[]`) and the alternate return shape (`{ codigoSessao, count, votacoes }`) when multiple votes exist. It also highlights the non-obvious risk of numeric code collisions with commission votes.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the function, the return shape, the prerequisite, and the critical warning are all present without filler or repetition. The warning is placed at the end where it is most memorable, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 covers the complete call path: how to obtain the input ID, what domain the ID must come from, what return shapes to expect, and the safety profile already reinforced by annotations. With an output schema present and the description still explaining the main variations, nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes `codigoVotacao` as the `codigoSessao` of the plenary session, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating the provenance (obtain it from `senado_search_votacoes`) and the plenary-only boundary condition, which is meaningful beyond the raw 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 states a specific action ('Obtém detalhes') on a specific resource ('votação de plenário') keyed by `codigoVotacao` and explicitly scopes it to plenary votes, including nominal votes. It also names the sibling space `senado_votacao_comissao` to prevent confusion, clearly distinguishing it from related tools.

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 instructs the agent to obtain `codigoSessao` via `senado_search_votacoes` before calling, and explicitly warns that codes from `senado_votacao_comissao` are invalid because they belong to a different numbering space. This provides both a when-to-use condition and an explicit exclusion.

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