senado_pessoal_tabelas

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds context on output structure (returns object with tabela, count, total, aviso?, registros[]), empty table behavior (count 0, empty list), and that 'filtro' matches any field. No contradiction.

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 well-structured, front-loaded with purpose, and broken into logical parts (overview, tables, return format, parameters, alternative). It is slightly verbose but clear and efficient.

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 (3 parameters, output schema, annotations), the description covers all necessary aspects: table enumeration, output schema, parameter behavior, empty results, limit, filter matching, and a clear alternative 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 coverage is 100%; description adds meaning for each parameter: 'tabela' enumerates all values with explanations, 'filtro' says it matches any field, 'limite' specifies default 100 and max 2000, and clarifies behavior for empty results.

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 Senado personnel tables based on the 'tabela' parameter, enumerates the available tables (both aggregate and nominal lists), and distinguishes its purpose from the sibling tool 'senado_servidores' for nominal server records.

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 personnel tables) and when not to (for effective/commissioned servers, use 'senado_servidores'). Also describes behavior for empty results and the effect of the 'limite' parameter.

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