senado_distribuicao_materias

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the return structure, ordering, and the constraint on codigoParlamentar with autoria. It broadens transparency beyond the annotations.

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 informative yet concise, covering purpose, parameters, return structure, and a usage hint in a few sentences. It is well-structured and front-loaded with key information.

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 and available annotations, the description is fully adequate: it explains all parameters, return format, ordering, and provides cross-reference to another tool. No gaps remain for a read-only statistics tool.

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 has 100% description coverage, providing baseline 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying the interaction of codigoParlamentar with tipo and specifying the sorted output, thus exceeding 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 returns statistics of matter distribution in a committee by type (autoria or relatoria) and optionally filtered by parliamentarian. It uses specific verbs and resource names, and references a sibling tool for obtaining committee siglas, effectively distinguishing itself from other tools.

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 explains when to use the tool (measuring legislative workload) and provides a constraint (codigoParlamentar only works with autoria). It suggests obtaining the sigla from senado_listar_comissoes but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or alternatives.

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