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

Annotations already establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by specifying the exact return envelope ({ codigoMateria, count, votacoes }) and the conditional addition of votos[] when incluirVotos is true. There is no contradiction with the 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler: the first sentence front-loads the action and output structure, and the second efficiently covers the optional parameter behavior and the source for the required ID. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The description covers the required parameter, the optional parameter with its default and effect, the output structure, and how to source the required ID. Since an output schema exists, the return-value explanation is a bonus, and nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is missing for this simple read-only operation.

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 already describes both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining how incluirVotos (default false) alters the response shape and by pointing to the specific sibling tools that can supply codigoMateria, which is practical semantic value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Obtém as votações de uma matéria pelo codigoMateria', making it clear the tool fetches all votes for a single matter by its code. It clearly identifies the required input and scopes the operation, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like senado_obter_votacao or senado_votacoes_senador, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 clear prerequisite guidance by instructing the agent to obtain codigoMateria via senado_buscar_materias or senado_obter_materia, which implies when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g., when to use a different vote-related tool), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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