senado_obter_votacao

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, consistent with a read operation. The description adds value by detailing the return shape (placar, resultado, votos[]) and the conditional behavior when a session has multiple votes, going beyond the 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, with three sentences covering purpose, return details, and prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the main action, 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 output schema exists (context signal), the description sufficiently explains the return structure for both single and multiple vote scenarios. It also provides the prerequisite chain, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema already describes the one parameter codigoVotacao as 'Código único da votação (codigoSessao da sessão plenária)'. The tool description reinforces this and adds context that the value comes from senado_search_votacoes, which enriches the semantic meaning for the agent.

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: 'Obtém detalhes de uma votação pelo codigoVotacao, incluindo votos nominais.' It specifies the verb (obtém), the resource (detalhes de uma votação), and the identifier. The return structure is detailed, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like senado_search_votacoes.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to obtain codigoSessao via senado_search_votacoes before calling this tool. It also explains the two return formats for single vs. multiple votes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives.

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