senado_autores_atuais

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), the description discloses the return structure, ordering, filters behavior (partial search without accents), and defaults/limits. It also explains that only authors with processes in tramitação are included. No contradictions.

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 concise: three sentences that front-load the purpose and ordering, then detail return structure and parameters. No extraneous information, every sentence earns its place.

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 tool that lists authors with filters and ordering, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it returns, filtering, ordering, limit constraints, and cross-reference to other tools. It is complete given the presence of an output schema (implied by the described return structure).

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 100% (each parameter documented), but the description adds value by explaining that 'nome' is a partial search without accents, 'uf' is a 2-letter code, and 'limite' has a default of 50 and max 1000. This goes beyond the schema alone.

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 the tool lists parliamentary authors of pending processes, ordered by production (most matters first). It distinguishes itself from siblings like senado_listar_senadores (which lists all senators) by specifying it only includes authors with active processes and providing a specific ordering.

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 provides usage guidance by stating the output 'codigo' can be used in 'senado_obter_senador' or 'senado_search_processos'. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it but the context is clear. A more explicit differentiation from senado_listar_senadores would improve it.

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