senado_reuniao_comissao

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds value by detailing the returned object structure (fields and nesting). No contradictions. No additional behavioral traits mentioned, but the tool is simple and read-only.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and structured enumeration of returned fields. No wasted words.

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 simplicity (single parameter, no enums, output schema present), the description fully explains the input source, output structure, and nesting. No gaps.

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 a description for codigoReuniao. The description adds meaning by linking the parameter to values from other tools, which goes beyond the schema's basic description.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Detalha' and resource 'reunião de comissão', clearly stating it details a commission meeting by codigoReuniao. It lists the returned fields and distinguishes from siblings by indicating how to obtain the input code from senado_agenda_comissoes or senado_reunioes_comissao.

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 explicitly states to obtain codigoReuniao from two sibling tools, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient for the agent.

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