senado_discurso_texto

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the output structure (codigoPronunciamento and texto string), which is useful but not essential given the implicit read-only nature. No additional behavioral traits like rate limits or auth needs are disclosed, but the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage make a score of 3 appropriate.

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 at three sentences, with the main action front-loaded. Every sentence adds necessary information: what the tool does, what it returns, and how to prepare the input. No wasted words.

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 simplicity (single parameter, read-only, output described), the description covers all necessary context: purpose, input source, output structure, and relationship to sibling tools. No gaps remain for effective use.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with a basic description ('Código do pronunciamento'). The description adds significant value by explaining that this code must be obtained first via other specific tools, clarifying the parameter's origin and usage flow 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 retrieves the full text of a specific speech, using a specific verb ('Obtém') and resource ('texto integral'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly instructing users to first obtain the speech code via senado_discursos_senador or senado_discursos_plenario.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: after obtaining the codigoPronunciamento from other tools. It names the prerequisite tools (senado_discursos_senador, senado_discursos_plenario) and the field to use ('codigo'), leaving no ambiguity about the usage context.

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