senado_search_votacoes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that results are aggregated (no nominal votes), ordered from most recent, and return fields like codigoSessao, data, materia, etc. 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?

Single paragraph organized logically: purpose, temporal constraints, other filters, return format, sibling tool reference. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Very concise for the amount of information conveyed.

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 10 optional parameters, no required, and the presence of an output schema (implied by context signals), the description covers all needed aspects: purpose, filtering options, output structure, ordering, and lacking details (nominal votes). It's complete for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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 covers all 10 parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the interplay between 'dias' and date range parameters, and gives an example for a full year. It also lists the other filter types, enhancing understanding beyond the 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 'Busca e lista votações do plenário combinando critérios opcionais' (searches and lists plenary votes with optional criteria). It distinguishes itself from siblings like senado_obter_votacao (which gets details for a specific session) and senado_votacoes_senador (votes per senator) by focusing on search and listing with multiple filters.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on temporal filter exclusivity: use 'dias' for recent activity OR 'dataInicio'/'dataFim' for arbitrary periods, with an example for a full year. Also recommends senado_obter_votacao for nominal votes, giving a clear alternative.

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