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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, but 'listar valores possíveis' makes the read-only, non-mutating nature reasonably clear. It does not state whether the returned values are exhaustive, whether they change over time, whether authentication or rate limits apply, or how the result is shaped.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource stated first and examples second; no filler. Slightly under-specified rather than verbose, which is a content gap more than a structural one.

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 simple two-parameter lookup with an enum on dimensao and no output schema, the description covers purpose and a hint at uf's role. It still leaves the agent guessing about return format (list vs. objects with labels) and about which dimensions are valid with or without uf, which is a meaningful gap given the 0% schema coverage.

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 0%, and the description partially compensates: the parenthetical ties 'municipio' results to a UF ('municípios de uma UF'), implicitly explaining that uf scopes the returned values. However, it does not explain the remaining dimension choices or how uf interacts with non-geographic dimensions, so documentation of the two parameters is incomplete.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lista os valores possíveis de uma dimensão') and reinforces it with concrete examples (cargos, partidos, municípios de uma UF). It is clearly a lookup/enumeration tool, distinguishable in spirit from siblings like buscar_candidatos or detalhar_candidato, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

The phrase 'para montar filtros' implies when the tool is useful (to populate filter options before a search), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives among the siblings. Usage must be inferred from the stated purpose.

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