senado_buscar_legislacao

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that at least one parameter is mandatory, describes the output structure, and mentions error behavior. It provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as the relationship with other tools.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then return structure, then constraints, then cross-references. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, constraints, and integration with siblings. However, it does not mention potential result limits or pagination, which would be helpful given the openWorldHint.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds significant meaning by clarifying that at least one parameter must be provided (though schema marks all optional) and gives examples of tipo values (LEI, DEC) and data format. This extends beyond the schema descriptions.

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 searches federal legal norms by tipo, numero, ano, or data, and lists the return structure including codigo, tipo, etc. It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing senado_obter_legislacao for details and senado_tabelas_referencia for valid types.

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?

Explicitly states that at least one parameter is required and failure results in an error. It guides the user to use the returned codigo with senado_obter_legislacao and consult senado_tabelas_referencia for valid tipos. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is clear.

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