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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the exact return payload, including timings in both local and Brasília time, aggregated biometrics, the internal ballot-box type, and the SHA-256 plus official TSE file link.

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?

It is a single dense sentence, front-loaded with the resource identity before the field inventory, so the agent sees the core purpose immediately. The long enumeration of returned fields is informative rather than redundant, though it reads somewhat as a laundry list.

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 no output schema, the description compensates well by detailing the return contents. However, for a 7-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, the complete omission of how to supply the section identifiers (and the ano-versus-2026 ambiguity) leaves a real gap for correct invocation.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the meaning and it does not: uf, ano, zona, secao, turno, municipio and the nested secoes array are never explained. Worse, the description frames the tool as 'eleições 2026' while an 'ano' parameter exists, and it never clarifies that 'secoes' enables a batch mode distinct from the single uf/zona/secao path.

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 names a specific resource, the official Boletim de Urna (BU) for a single electoral section, and enumerates the contained data (votes per candidate, blanks, nulls, turnout, timings, biometrics, hash, TSE link). An agent can tell this is a per-section BU retrieval rather than an aggregate or hash-check tool, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like eleicoes_conferir_bu_impresso or eleicoes_verificar_hash.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related siblings (eleicoes_totais, eleicoes_filtrar_secoes, eleicoes_conferir_bu_impresso). The phrase 'de uma seção eleitoral' hints at single-section scope, but the schema's batch 'secoes' array is never acknowledged, so the agent gets no routing or mode-selection help.

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