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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact: output content is tiered, with year/authors/beneficiaries (CNPJ)/areas/types only appearing under a paid token. It says nothing about pagination behavior (despite mentioning 'página'), error handling, or what the free tier returns exactly.

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 short sentences, no filler: the first states the resource and default outputs, the second states the paid-tier delta. The most decision-relevant information (what you get, and what costs) is front-loaded.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the field enumeration in the description is doing necessary work. However, 'página' is left unexplained and there is no page parameter in the schema, so the pagination model an agent would need for repeated calls remains ambiguous.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to the token parameter by explaining what the paid tier actually changes in the response rather than just how to obtain the token. It adds nothing specific about codigo_ibge beyond what the schema already documents.

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 (emendas parlamentares recebidas por um município) and enumerates what the summary returns (total, per capita, page), so an agent can tell it produces an aggregated municipal view. It does not explicitly contrast itself with ranking_municipios, which is the closest sibling, so it stops short of full 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?

Usage is only implied: you need a municipality code (the schema points to buscar_municipio) and a paid token to unlock the richer breakdown. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over ranking_municipios, nor any exclusion of cases where it should not be used.

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