senado_requerimentos_cpi

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Description adds critical behavioral details: zero-based pagination defined upstream, return structure {siglaCpi, pagina, count, requerimentos}, and behavior at end of pages (count 0). 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 brief—four sentences—with action verb first ('Lista'), then pagination, then return format, then edge cases. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy or 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 full schema coverage, output schema, and annotations, the description is complete. It covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameters, pagination logic, return structure, and how to obtain input (via sibling tool). No gaps for a read-only paginated list 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% with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds value by giving example for siglaCpi ('CPIVD, CPIPED') and clarifying pagina is zero-indexed with default 0. However, most parameter info is already in schema, so slightly above baseline 3 but not maximally helpful.

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 lists requerimentos of a CPI, specifying required parameter siglaCpi and pagination. It distinguishes itself from siblings by directing to senado_listar_comissoes for obtaining siglas, making purpose unambiguous.

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?

Description provides explicit when-to-use (for CPI requerimentos) and how to paginate (check count==0 for end). It also handles edge cases (CPIs without requerimentos return empty list) and recommends sibling tool for siglas. No exclusions needed.

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