senado_orientacao_bancada

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds detail on the return structure (count, votacoes with nested fields) but does not contradict annotations. It could mention that empty results are possible, but overall clear.

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 no fluff. It front-loads the purpose, provides usage guidance, and specifies the return format in a few sentences.

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 that the tool has an output schema (implied by description of return format), the description fully explains what the tool returns, including nested fields. No missing information for an agent to use it correctly.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining that you can use either a single date or a period, which clarifies the mutual exclusivity implied by the schema.

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 it returns party leader voting orientations in plenary sessions, with a placar, essential for party discipline analysis. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'senado_resultado_plenario' by mentioning the alternative for session results.

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: inform a single date ('data') or a period ('dataInicio'/'dataFim'). Also directs to use 'senado_resultado_plenario' for session results, providing clear when-not-to-use guidance and an alternative.

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