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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the conditional expansion behavior (votes of individual senators only appear when incluirVotos is true, default false), which is useful, but it does not discuss payload size, rate limits, or pagination for a potentially large result.

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 purpose in the first clause, followed by return shape and the optional flag; no filler sentences. The return-shape enumeration is somewhat long and overlaps with the declared output schema, but each clause still carries information.

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, the return-value walkthrough is partly redundant, but the description still supplies the two things structured fields cannot: how to obtain the required codigoMateria and the effect of the optional flag. Nothing critical for a correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema's terse 'Incluir votos nominais de cada senador' by spelling out the fields added when the flag is true (nome, partido, uf, voto), helping the agent decide whether to set it. codigoMateria semantics are only restated, not enriched.

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 and resource: it fetches the votes (votações) of a legislative item identified by codigoMateria. An agent immediately knows what it returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near-siblings such as senado_obter_votacao, senado_search_votacoes, or senado_votacao_comissao, so the agent must infer which vote-listing tool to pick.

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?

Provides a genuine prerequisite chain: the codigoMateria must be obtained via senado_buscar_materias or senado_obter_materia, which is actionable guidance an agent can follow directly. It stops short of stating when to prefer this tool over the other vote-related siblings or when not to use it.

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