senado_ecidadania_sugerir_tema_enquete

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint=true (results may vary). The description adds behavioral details: analyzes full set of open queries and ideas, filters by polarization/consensus and minimum participation, returns up to 10 suggestions with structure. No contradiction with 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 a single paragraph but well-organized: purpose, output structure, criteria details. It includes necessary information without excessive verbosity. Could be slightly shortened but effective.

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 (analyzing many items, returning structured suggestions with metrics, criteria with defaults), the description fully covers functionality, output format, and usage hints. It also references sibling tools for further investigation. No gaps evident.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats parameter defaults and adds context about filtering criteria (e.g., 'evitarPolarizacao' meaning avoid 50/50 split), but does not significantly add beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 suggests topics for a monthly public survey by analyzing consultations and ideas from e-Cidadania, selecting the most engaging ones. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like senado_ecidadania_consultas_analise and senado_ecidadania_listar_consultas by focusing on topic suggestion.

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 (suggesting topics) and ends by directing to specific sibling tools for investigating suggestions (obter_consulta or obter_ideia). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' but provides clear context.

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