senado_reunioes_comissao

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description adds that intervals across years are divided internally, and that absence of dates defaults to last 30 days. It also fully specifies the return structure, providing complete behavioral context.

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 informative and efficiently packed into a few sentences, clearly front-loading the main purpose. It could be slightly more concise, but it does not waste 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 has 3 parameters, an output schema, and behavioral nuances (year splitting), the description covers everything: parameter usage, defaults, return structure, and cross-tool references. It is fully sufficient 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining date format (YYYYMMDD), default behavior (30 days), and the relationship between parameters, thus providing additional semantics.

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 explicitly states the tool lists meetings of a commission by sigla within a date range, with a default of last 30 days. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing senado_listar_comissoes for discovering sigla and senado_reuniao_comissao for detailed pauta, thus clarifying its specific role.

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 gives clear when-to-use (listing meetings) and when-not-to-use (for details, use the singular tool). It also tells how to obtain required parameters (sigla from listar_comissoes) and what to do with the output (use codigo in reuniao_comissao).

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