senado_buscar_materias

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

Discloses read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior consistent with annotations. Adds details on return structure, pagination (default 100, max 500, truncation warning), default ordering, and the need for at least one criterion.

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?

Single well-structured paragraph that front-loads core purpose, then provides examples, return format, sibling link, and limit details. Every sentence adds value with no 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 tool's complexity (11 optional parameters, output schema, many siblings), the description covers all necessary aspects: usage, parameter guidance, return structure, pagination, and cross-reference to sibling tool. No gaps.

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%, but description adds meaningful context beyond schema: explains when to use each parameter (e.g., for recent matters), notes default order, and provides usage patterns that integrate multiple parameters.

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?

Describes exactly what the tool does: search legislative matters by type, number, year, keywords, author, date range, or status, requiring at least one criterion. Clearly differentiates from sibling senado_obter_materia by specifying when to use each.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use examples like 'matérias recentes sobre X' with suggested parameters, and when-not-to-use by stating not to call details just to list results. Clearly directs to sibling for detailed lookup.

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