senado_obter_comissao

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description consistently portrays a read-only data retrieval. It adds valuable behavioral details like internal sigla resolution and detailed output structures per section, enhancing transparency without contradiction.

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 that effectively communicates the core purpose and details. It is fairly concise but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) to improve readability. However, it is not overly verbose.

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, parameters, and output structure comprehensively. It lacks explicit error handling or edge cases, but for a read-only data retrieval tool with inline output schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the effect of 'secao' on the output and the internal resolution of 'sigla', providing context beyond parameter names and types.

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 specifies the verb 'obtém' and resource 'comissão' with parameter 'sigla'. It distinguishes itself by referencing 'senado_listar_comissoes' to discover the sigla, making it evident this tool retrieves a single commission's details.

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 the two possible sections ('resumo' and 'membros') and their outputs, and directs the agent to 'senado_listar_comissoes' for finding the sigla. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the context is sufficient for typical usage.

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