senado_ecidadania_sugerir_tema_enquete

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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds behavioral context by explaining internal filtering logic and output structure, enhancing transparency beyond 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 concise (5-6 sentences), well-structured with purpose first, then output format, then parameter details. Every sentence adds useful 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, input parameters with defaults, return structure, and next steps. With an output schema available, it is fully complete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by summarizing criteria, explaining defaults, and clarifying how parameters affect behavior (e.g., 'apenasEmTramitacao padrão true → considera só consultas abertas').

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 poll, analyzing consultations and ideas, and filtering by engagement criteria. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like senado_ecidadania_listar_consultas by focusing on selecting top suggestions.

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 the tool (to get suggestions) and what to do next (use senado_ecidadania_obter_consulta or senado_ecidadania_obter_ideia). It does not mention exclusions or when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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