senado_senador_historico

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds rich behavioral context: the return shape (`codigoSenador`, `tipo`, `count`, `itens`), per-type item structures, and behavior for empty results (count 0, empty `itens`). 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?

The description is moderately long but well-structured: purpose first, then parameter details, then return format. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. 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?

Despite complexity (multiple tipo values with different item structures), the description fully explains the output format and edge cases. It references the output schema (present) and provides complete guidance for using the tool, including prerequisite steps. 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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaningful detail: for `tipo`, it enumerates all values with their subfields; for `codigoSenador`, it references the source tool. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 retrieves historical functional records for a senator based on a `tipo` parameter, listing all possible values. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `senado_obter_senador` (for biographical data) and `senado_listar_senadores` (to obtain the code). The verb 'Histórico funcional' plus parameter explanation makes the purpose specific and unique.

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 tells when to use this tool (for historical records) and when to use an alternative (`senado_obter_senador` for biographical data and mandates). It also instructs to obtain `codigoSenador` via `senado_listar_senadores`. While it doesn't list explicit exclusions, the context is clear.

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