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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: mandatory at least one filter, default/max `limite` with an `aviso` when truncated, the exact response envelope and item fields, compacted `autoria`, boolean `tramitando`, and accepted date formats. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact and well-ordered: action, return shape, constraints, limit behavior, follow-up tool, and example—each sentence carries distinct information. There is no filler or repetition of schema details, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 9-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: the mandatory-filter rule, pagination/truncation behavior, response structure, date formats, and how to proceed to detail retrieval. Given the output schema exists, not elaborating every returned field is acceptable, yet the description still does so prominently.

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 parameters are already documented individually; the description adds key group-level semantics by stating that at least one filter (`sigla`, `numero`, `ano`, `autor`, or period) is required, which is not evident from the schema (all params optional). It also provides a concrete example combining three parameters and reinforces the date format requirement, adding real value beyond the 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Busca processos legislativos no endpoint v3 `/processo`') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `senado_buscar_materias` by noting it offers complementary parameters. It also points to `senado_obter_processo` as the follow-up for details, making the tool's purpose unmistakable among a large sibling group.

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 clear context: this is for filtered legislative-process searches, and it explicitly directs the agent to use the returned `id` with `senado_obter_processo` for details. It also states the mandatory-filter requirement. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer `senado_buscar_materias` over this tool, so while guidance is strong, it is not fully exhaustive on exclusions.

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