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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds crucial behavioral detail: zero-based page indexing, the exact return shape, the `count` field being page size, the page-beyond-total behavior, and the upstream endpoint's tendency to return empty with an `aviso`. This goes well beyond the structured 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 dense but every sentence serves a purpose: scope, pagination semantics, output shape, input discovery, and failure behavior. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, then provides operational details without redundancy.

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, parameter schema, and read-only annotations, the description still covers the remaining contextual gaps: pagination semantics, end-of-list detection, data source discovery, and known upstream unreliability. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool and interpret its results confidently.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful semantics not present in the schema: `pagina` is zero-based as defined by upstream, and `count` represents page size and can be used for pagination termination. It also clarifies the `siglaCpi` values can be discovered through a related tool, enhancing the schema's simple examples.

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') with a precise resource ('requerimentos de uma CPI em atividade') and identifies the key parameter (`siglaCpi`). It clearly distinguishes this from other senate tools like `senado_listar_comissoes`, which is referenced only as a way to discover siglas.

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 definition states when to use the tool (to list CPI requerimentos), how to obtain valid input (`senado_listar_comissoes` with `tipo=cpi`), and how to detect the end of pagination via `count: 0`. It also warns against misinterpreting empty responses, giving explicit guidance on handling the known limitation.

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