senado_agenda_comissoes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the exact return structure (campos: data, siglaComissao, count, reunioes with nested fields) and the scope (date-based with optional committee filter). This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand what to expect.

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 compact paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and parameters, then lists the return format, and finally gives sibling guidance. Every sentence adds new value; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool has only two optional parameters, a provided output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, how to use it (defaults, filters), what it returns, and how it relates to similar tools. No gaps remain for the agent to infer.

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 schema already describes each parameter. However, the description adds meaning: it notes the default value for 'data' (padrão: hoje) and that 'siglaComissao' is optional. This extra context, especially the default, helps the agent know it can be omitted for today's agenda.

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 clearly states it obtains the agenda of all committee meetings on a date, with an optional committee filter. It lists the return fields and distinguishes itself from siblings (senado_reunioes_comissao and senado_reuniao_comissao), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 description explicitly mentions the default date (today) and the optional filter. It provides clear guidance on when to use alternative tools: 'Para o histórico de uma única comissão por período use senado_reunioes_comissao; para detalhes de uma reunião use senado_reuniao_comissao com o codigo'. This covers both when to use this tool and when not to.

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