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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is real: it discloses the two output modes (per file version vs. per hour with votes gained in that hour), the row contents, and the earliest-time boundary of the dataset. It stops short of explaining that max_pontos implies downsampling or how large a timeline can be, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences with the core subject front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical mode switch is efficient, though the list of returned fields plus the SHA-256 detail runs long against the missing parameter explanation.

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?

For a 7-parameter, optional-only, read-only query with no output schema, the description conveys the domain semantics well but leaves half the parameters and the downsampling implied by max_pontos unexplained. An agent could call it plausibly but would have to guess at date-range syntax and sampling behaviour.

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?

With 0% schema coverage across 7 parameters, the description carries the full burden and only partly delivers: 'no Brasil ou numa UF' maps to uf, '(ou uma linha por hora)' maps to agrupar=versao|hora, and 'a partir de que horário' hints at de. It says nothing about ate, ano, cargo, or the sampling behaviour of max_pontos, so a third of the schema remains opaque.

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?

It names a specific artefact (the TSE result-file disclosure timeline for the 2nd round, national or per UF) and enumerates what each row carries (% sections counted, votes per candidate, version number, SHA-256). That is far more informative than a restated title. However, it never names or distinguishes itself from siblings such as eleicoes_votos_por_horario, whose purpose overlaps with the 'one line per hour' mode described here.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative, even though the hour-grouped mode clearly overlaps eleicoes_votos_por_horario and eleicoes_totais. The only indirect hint is that the tool reports from which time the dataset has data, which is a coverage note rather than usage guidance.

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