senado_obter_comissao

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds value by disclosing the internal resolution of sigla to a numeric code and detailing the response structures for each section, providing behavioral context 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 a single, well-organized paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose, options, and cross-tool dependency. Every sentence serves a purpose without unnecessary verbosity.

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 (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description sufficiently explains what the tool does, what each parameter does, what the outputs look like, and how to prepare inputs (find sigla via sibling tool). It is complete for effective agent usage.

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?

Both parameters have 100% schema coverage. The description adds significant meaning: examples for sigla (CCJ, CAE), explains the resolution process, and clarifies the section parameter's options and corresponding output structures, going well beyond the schema definitions.

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 retrieves commission data by sigla, with two section options. It differentiates itself from senado_listar_comissoes by noting that the sigla can be discovered via that sibling tool, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 this tool (to get commission details) and how to obtain the sigla via senado_listar_comissoes. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with other similar tools like senado_reuniao_comissao, but the context is clear enough.

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