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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses important runtime behavior: the full list is downloaded and filtered in the Worker, results are truncated to limite (default 50, max 500), and an aviso is returned on truncation. It also documents the exact return shape, adding real value beyond 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?

Three focused sentences deliver the tool's purpose, filter mechanics, return format, limits, truncation behavior, and a routing pointer to the relevant sibling. Everything earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 the output schema already exists, the description still adds the key behavioral guarantee (Worker-side filtering), the truncation warning, field-level return details, and a cross-reference for related data. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke this 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 useful semantics by stating that searches are partial and accent-insensitive, and by clarifying that parameters map to filters on the returned fields. It does not fully re-explain each parameter but provides enough extra context to justify a 4.

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: 'Lista colaboradores terceirizados do Senado' and clearly states the filtering dimensions (nome, empresa, lotação). It also differentiates itself from the sibling senado_empresas_contratadas, so there is no ambiguity about what this tool returns.

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 explicitly explains that results can be filtered by partial search without accents and are limited to a configurable limite. It also names the alternative tool for company/contract data, telling the agent when to use a different sibling instead.

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