senado_liderancas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the return structure ({count, liderancas}) and the fields within each item, which is beyond the annotations. There is 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 concise and well-structured: two sentences, the first stating purpose and return format, the second giving filtering and alternative. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no unnecessary words.

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 (4 parameters, optional filters) and the presence of annotations and output schema (implied by the return structure described), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, filters, default behavior, return format, and alternative tool. It is complete for the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with each parameter having a basic description. The description adds value by consolidating the filtering options and stating the default behavior (returns all without filters), which provides additional context beyond the schema.

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's purpose: listing leadership roles in the Senate and National Congress. It specifies the verb 'list' and the resource 'lideranças', and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'senado_listar_blocos' by mentioning it is for blocos composition.

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 filtering options (casa, codigoParlamentar, vigente, siglaTipoLideranca) and states that without filters it returns all. It also explicitly names an alternative tool ('senado_listar_blocos') for blocos composition, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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