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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden. The description still goes beyond them by disclosing edge cases: no-media sessions return count/total 0 with aviso, exceeding limite includes aviso, and each item exposes fields like codigo, duracaoSegundos, urlVideo, urlAudio, and urlThumbnail. This makes expected response variants clear.

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 efficient: purpose and return shape appear first, followed by edge cases, item structure, id sourcing, and the sibling alternative. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of annotation booleans.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is fully sufficient: it explains where ids come from, what items contain, what happens on empty or over-limit responses, and which sibling handles transcription. An agent can choose and invoke this tool correctly without additional clues.

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 and heavy schema compensation is not required. The description adds meaningful semantics for the id parameter by naming the exact upstream tools that produce it per tipo, and it clarifies that media coverage is broader than notes coverage. It adds little beyond the schema for orador or limite, but the schema already documents those.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it lists videos and audios ('unidades descritivas') of a plenary session or committee meeting. It names the returned shape and explicitly contrasts itself with senado_notas_taquigraficas, so an agent can distinguish it from the many senado_* siblings.

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 explicit context: obtain the id via senado_agenda_plenario/senado_resultado_plenario for sessions or senado_reuniao_comissao for meetings, and for the corresponding text transcription use senado_notas_taquigraficas, 'não esta'. The when/where and the alternative tool are both stated directly.

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