senado_senador_historico

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details such as the response structure (`codigoSenador, tipo, count, itens`) and behavior for empty results (count 0, empty itens), which supplements the annotations effectively.

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 concise yet comprehensive, packing all essential information into a single paragraph. Sentences are front-loaded with the main purpose, and each subsequent clause adds value without redundancy.

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 complexity of multiple `tipo` values and varying item structures, the description fully explains the response shape and edge cases (e.g., empty results). The presence of an output schema is inferred, and the description bridges any gaps, making the tool well-understood.

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%, and the description enriches each `tipo` value by describing the fields returned (e.g., for `licencas`: `dataInicio`, `dataFim`, `descricao`). It also clarifies that `historico-academico` returns raw API records, adding meaning beyond schema 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 specifies the tool retrieves functional history of a senator based on the `tipo` parameter. It lists each value with its associated fields, effectively distinguishing it from siblings like `senado_obter_senador`, which handles biographical data and mandates.

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 the prerequisite `codigoSenador` (obtained via `senado_listar_senadores`) and directs users to `senado_obter_senador` for biographical data and mandates, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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