senado_processo_detalhe

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: the return structure ({ secao, count, total, aviso?, itens }), default/max limit (100/500), accepted date formats (YYYYMMDD or ISO), and per-section filters. No contradictions with 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 detailed but well-structured, using bullet-style explanation for each section. It front-loads the main purpose and then lists fields and filters. While it is lengthy, every sentence adds value. Minor room for conciseness.

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 (10 parameters, output schema described), the description is comprehensive. It covers input constraints, default values, date formats, output structure, and cross-references to sibling tools. The agent has all necessary information to use the tool 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining which parameters apply to which section (e.g., codigoParlamentarAutor for emendas, codigoParlamentar/codigoColegiado/dataReferencia for relatorias) and clarifying date formats. This aids correct parameter usage.

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: to detail aspects of legislative processes based on the 'secao' parameter. It specifies three sections (emendas, relatorias, prazos) and lists the fields returned for each, distinguishing itself from sibling tools by referencing how to obtain prerequisites (e.g., idProcesso via senado_search_processos).

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 provides explicit guidance: it requires at least one filter (idProcesso, codigoMateria, or date range) and references sibling tools for obtaining IDs and tipos de prazo. It does not specify when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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