senado_notas_taquigraficas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds value by explaining pagination limits (max 20 blocks per call in text mode), return structure details per mode, and linkage to other tools for input. It does not disclose any potential side effects beyond the read operation, which aligns 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, front-loaded with the primary function. It packs substantial detail without being overly verbose; each sentence contributes necessary information (return structure, mode behavior, input sourcing, filtering). Minor improvement could be breaking into bullet points for readability, but current form is clear 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?

For a read-only tool with six parameters, the description sufficiently covers all essential aspects: how to obtain the required id (via sibling tools), mode behavior, pagination with limits, filtering, and the return structure. The output schema exists, so explaining return fields is appropriate. Given the tool's complexity and the annotation coverage, the description provides complete contextual guidance.

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 each parameter has a basic description. The tool description enhances this by explaining the functional impact of parameters: e.g., modo differentiates between summary and full text, tipo selects session vs committee, sequenciaInicio/Fim control pagination, and orador filters by speaker. It also notes default values and the maximum block count in text mode, going 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 explicitly states the tool retrieves official transcriptions (notas taquigráficas) of plenary sessions or committee meetings. It distinguishes from siblings by instructing how to obtain the required id via senado_agenda_plenario or senado_reuniao_comissao, and points to senado_videos_taquigrafia for media, clearly differentiating its purpose.

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?

Provides clear context for usage: obtaining transcripts of sessions/meetings and filtering by speaker. It explains modes (resumo vs texto) and pagination control. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for other data types) or list alternatives beyond obtaining the id, though the sibling references imply appropriate contexts.

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