senado_remuneracoes_servidores

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety traits are already clear. The description adds behavioral details: explains the return structures for both modes (aggregated vs individual), mentions truncation with 'aviso' if limit exceeded, and specifies that results are limited by 'limite' (max 500), providing useful context 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 but well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, then details mode options with output structures, followed by filtering and pointing to a sibling tool. Every sentence adds value, no 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 complexity (2 modes, multiple optional filters, limit parameter, and output schema), the description covers all aspects: it explains output structure for both modes, truncation behavior, how to avoid large result sets, and even cross-references the related tool for employee registry. It is fully self-contained for an agent to use 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 6 parameters, so the schema already documents them. However, the description adds value by explaining the effect of 'nome' and 'tipoFolha' filters, the default behavior of 'modo', and practical usage tips like filtering to avoid long lists, enhancing understanding beyond bare 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 retrieves remuneration data for Senate employees for a given year/month from 2013 onwards. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning that for employee registry one should use 'senado_servidores'.

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?

It explains when to use 'resumo' (default) vs 'detalhe' mode, advises filtering by 'nome' or 'tipoFolha' in detalhe to avoid long lists, and points to the alternative tool 'senado_servidores' for employee registry, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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