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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying exactly what each returned item contains, including quorum and per-party orientations, and clarifies this is a safe read-only operation.

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 its purpose and uses three dense sentences: what it returns, how to parameterize it, and which sibling to use instead. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 an output schema and annotations that already cover safety, the description leaves no critical gap. An agent knows what data will come back, how to supply the date filters, and when to route to senado_resultado_plenario instead.

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%, so the date format and field purpose are already documented. The description adds the key semantic rule that data is for a single day while dataInicio/dataFim define a period, which is not encoded in the schema properties themselves.

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 the exact resource: party leadership vote orientations in plenary votes, including the resulting scoreboard. It explicitly positions the tool as essential for party discipline analysis, and the final sentence distinguishes it from senado_resultado_plenario so an agent can tell them apart.

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 gives explicit input guidance: pass a single day via data or a period via dataInicio/dataFim. It also names senado_resultado_plenario as the alternative for session results, providing both a when-to-use and a when-not-to-use signal.

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