senado_resultado_veto

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

Description discloses critical behavioral traits beyond the annotations: returns raw API object without wrappers, fields vary by veto, may return empty object if not yet voted, and returns error on non-existent code. Annotations only provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds significant value by detailing response variability and error conditions.

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 efficiently written with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then systematically covers return structure, edge cases (empty/error), parameter usage, and a cross-reference. Each sentence contributes essential information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 params, output schema exists, annotations provided), the description is complete. It explains the return object shape (codigo, tipo, resultado), typical fields of resultado, edge cases (empty object, error), and how to use the parameters. The cross-reference to senado_vetos ensures the agent knows how to obtain input codes. No gaps remain.

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?

The schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for both codigo and tipo that mirror the description. The description does not add new information beyond what the schema provides, only reiterates the same semantics. Thus, it meets the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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?

Description clearly states it returns the result of a roll-call vote on a presidential veto. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying how to use different code types (veto, materia, dispositivo) and directs to senado_vetos for obtaining codes. The verb 'Resultado' plus the specific resource 'votação nominal de um veto presidencial' makes the 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 usage guidance: inform codigo and tipo, explains each tipo, and gives default (veto). It also cross-references senado_vetos to obtain the code. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like senado_resultado_plenario or senado_obter_votacao, but the context plus the specific purpose (veto result) makes usage clear.

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