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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: pagination limit (`limite` default 100/máx 500), the return envelope with optional `aviso`, acceptance of two date formats, and the mandatory-filter constraint.

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?

Long but information-dense; the core purpose is front-loaded and each `secao` mode is structured compactly with → notation. Every sentence earns its place given the 10-parameter, 3-mode complexity, though the full field enumerations could theoretically be trimmed.

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 10-parameter, 3-mode tool this is unusually complete: it specifies per-section outputs and filter applicability, the shared filter set, pagination behavior, return envelope, prerequisite sibling tools, and examples. Even with an output schema present, the description leaves no gap for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema: cross-parameter relationships (which filters apply to which `secao`), the runtime requirement of at least one filter, and concrete valid combinations via examples like `{ secao: 'emendas', codigoMateria: 137999 }`.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Detalha') with a precise resource ('aspecto de processos legislativos') and disambiguates three sub-modes via the `secao` enum. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like `senado_obter_processo` (full process detail) and `senado_search_processos` (search), and even routes the agent to the correct sibling for obtaining `idProcesso`.

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?

Gives concrete workflow guidance: obtain `idProcesso` via `senado_search_processos` and prazo types via `senado_tabelas_processo`, plus valid example payloads per section. It clearly states the 'informe pelo menos um filtro' requirement, but does not explicitly name when-not scenarios against alternatives like `senado_obter_processo`.

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