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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that `tipos-materia` is a curated in-server catalog (12 common types) rather than the live upstream `processo/siglas` (~184 siglas), and notes every response carries a `tabela` field. This provenance caveat is the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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 with the verb and parameter, then structured as a per-enum-value breakdown that is easy to scan. It is dense with backticks and arrows and fairly long, but nearly every clause carries distinct information, so waste is minimal.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still summarizes each return shape and cross-links to the consuming sibling tools, so an agent has everything needed to select the right table and interpret the result. Nothing material is missing for a single-parameter lookup tool.

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% and the enum already lists the valid values, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by mapping each value to its concrete return shape (e.g. `{ count, totalSenadores, partidos }`, `{ numero, periodo, dataInicio, dataFim }`), adding meaning the schema's flat enum description does not.

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 verb (Consulta) and resource (tabelas de referência do Senado) parameterized by `tabela`, then enumerates what each of the six enum values returns. It also distinguishes itself from the nominal-list sibling by explicitly routing to `senado_listar_senadores`, so an agent can tell it apart without opening a schema.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: `tipos-materia` should be used to find the correct `sigla` before calling `senado_buscar_materias`/`senado_search_processos`, and `tipos-norma`/`tipos-uso-palavra` are framed as inputs for their respective siblings. It also names the alternative tool for nominal parliamentarian lists, covering both usage and exclusion.

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