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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to restate those. However, it adds no other behavioral context: it doesn't clarify what exactly is retrieved, whether it returns full details with the 'completo' parameter, or any special handling. The phrase 'Título e local de votação' hints at the output but is not explicit.

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 a single short phrase, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks essential information about the tool's behavior, parameters, and usage. The brevity does not serve the agent well; it reads more like a tagline than a functional description.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no description of return values or behavior, the tool is severely under-documented. The description offers only a vague subject reference and fails to provide any guidance for basic usage, leaving the agent to infer everything from the schema.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It provides no explanation for any of the 6 parameters, nor does it mention that DATANASCIMENTO and NOMEMAE are required. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema field names, which are already self-explanatory.

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 'Título e local de votação (TSE)' is a noun phrase that indicates the subject (voter registration title and voting location) but fails to state an action. It barely distinguishes from siblings like 'investigacao_situacao_eleitoral' which also deals with electoral matters. It is not a tautology but is too vague to convey what the tool does.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or when to prefer an alternative sibling like 'investigacao_situacao_eleitoral'. No context or exclusions are mentioned.

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