senado_orcamento_parlamentar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds that the tool returns either `{tipo, count, emendas}` or `{tipo, count, oficios}` with field details, and that count is 0 with empty list when no records. No contradictions.

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?

Description is well-structured: front-loaded main purpose, followed by parameter-driven output details, edge case, and sibling comparison. Every sentence is necessary and concise.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers: purpose, parameter usage, response format, edge case, and alternative tool. It is complete and self-contained.

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% for the single parameter `tipo`. The description adds value by explaining that the parameter determines the response structure (emendas vs. oficios), which goes beyond the schema's enum label.

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?

Description clearly states it lists parliamentary amendments to the federal budget and supporting documents. It specifies the main resource (amendments) and the two tipos (emendas, oficios). It distinguishes from sibling `senado_execucao_orcamentaria` by contrasting federal vs. internal 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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (for federal budget amendments) and when to use an alternative (`senado_execucao_orcamentaria` for internal Senate budget). Also indicates default `tipo` behavior and that no other parameters are accepted.

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