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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world profile, so the safety burden is offloaded. The description adds genuinely useful edge behavior: each `tipo` returns `count` 0 and an empty list when there are no records, and it details the response envelope per query.

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?

Front-loaded by `tipo`, with a logical field-by-field breakdown and a trailing alternative pointer plus examples. It is dense but every clause carries information; the only mild redundancy is restating return fields that the output schema already covers.

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 exists, the description is more than sufficient: it covers all three query modes, filter applicability, empty-result behavior, and routes related spending queries to `senado_ceaps`. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke this tool 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 already 100% (baseline 3), but the description adds meaning by mapping each enum value to its specific output shape and by clarifying the filter scoping — `uf`/`nome` apply to auxilio-moradia and escritorios-apoio, and `nome` also filters aposentados. This goes beyond the schema on the cross-parameter interactions.

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?

States a specific resource (dados administrativos dos senadores) and enumerates all three `tipo` values with their exact return shapes, so an agent can tell exactly what data comes back without reading the schema. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `senado_ceaps` by name.

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 a clear usage rule ('Para gastos de cota parlamentar use senado_ceaps') and explains which filters apply per `tipo`, plus concrete call examples. It lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling senator tools like `senado_obter_senador` or `senado_listar_senadores`, so it stops short of a full when/when-not map.

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