senado_ecidadania_obter_consulta

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true (no side effects) and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by detailing exactly what the returned object contains (id, materia, ementa, votosSim, etc.) and noting that some fields like 'comissao' and dates may be null. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, though the core behavioral trait (read-only) is already covered.

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. It front-loads the purpose, then lists return fields, and ends with usage instruction. No extraneous information, but the list of fields could be more compact. Overall, it is well-structured and efficient.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fully explains both input requirements (how to get the id) and output structure (list of returned fields and potential nulls). For a simple tool with one parameter, this description is thorough and leaves no gaps for the agent.

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 only parameter 'id' is already fully described in the input schema as 'ID da consulta pública'. The description does not add new semantic meaning to the parameter itself, but provides usage guidance on how to obtain it. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description's contribution is marginal in this dimension.

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 'Obtém o detalhe de uma consulta pública específica do e-Cidadania' (gets the detail of a specific public consultation). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'senado_ecidadania_listar_consultas' and 'senado_ecidadania_consultas_analise' by instructing to get the id from them, making the purpose unambiguous and specific.

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 context for when to use this tool: after obtaining the id via 'senado_ecidadania_listar_consultas' or 'senado_ecidadania_consultas_analise'. It also implies that for a specific consultation detail, this is the tool to use. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, but the guidance is clear enough for most cases.

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