senado_orcamento_parlamentar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral details: that no other parameters are accepted, and that count is 0 with an empty list when no records exist. It also details the output structure for each tipo, which goes 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 a single paragraph of five sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and resource, then concisely details the output formats and usage guidelines. Every sentence provides value with no repetition or fluff.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter with enum, no required parameters, output schema implicitly documented in description), the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, parameter effect, output shapes, empty result behavior, and differentiation from a sibling tool.

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 the parameter 'tipo' having an enum and description. The description adds significant meaning by explaining how the output structure changes based on the parameter value ('tipo: emendas' vs 'tipo: oficios'), providing concrete JSON shapes.

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 action (Lista/List) and resource (emendas parlamentares/ofícios de apoio). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'senado_execucao_orcamentaria' by noting the different scope (federal budget vs. internal Senate budget).

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 tells when to use this tool (for parliamentary amendments to the federal budget) and when not (for internal Senate budget execution), naming the alternative tool 'senado_execucao_orcamentaria'.

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