senado_ecidadania_obter_evento

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint as true and destructiveHint as false. The description adds value by detailing the returned fields, including conditional fields like videoUrl ('quando houver'), and the maximum number of pauta items. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand what to expect.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and lists returns, the second provides a prerequisite. No unnecessary words, and the structure is front-loaded with the key action.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no enums), combined with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the return fields and the prerequisite. Minor gaps like explaining status values are not critical for this simple retrieval 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 coverage is 100% with the parameter 'id' having a description 'ID do evento'. The description reinforces that the ID must be obtained first, but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter.

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 um evento interativo do e-Cidadania', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'senado_ecidadania_listar_eventos' by mentioning that the ID should be obtained from that tool. The return fields are listed, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells the agent to obtain the ID via 'senado_ecidadania_listar_eventos' before using this tool, which is direct usage guidance. It does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context is clear enough for appropriate selection.

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