senado_senadores_admin

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds value by detailing return structures (fields per tipo), filter applicability, and behavior when no records (count 0, empty list). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Every sentence serves a purpose, structured with clear backtick formatting for readability. Front-loaded with main purpose, then detailed per-type descriptions, filter rules, and sibling reference. No fluff.

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 complexity (three tipos, two filters), the description covers return structures, empty results, filter conditions, and points to the correct sibling for related data. Output schema exists, but description still provides sufficient context.

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%, but description adds substantial meaning: explains how 'tipo' selects data category, how 'uf' and 'nome' filters apply to specific tipos, and that 'nome' uses partial search. Also lists return fields for each tipo.

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?

Description clearly states it provides administrative data about senators, lists three specific data types (auxilio-moradia, escritorios-apoio, aposentados), and differentiates from sibling tool senado_ceaps by explicitly directing users there for parliamentary quota expenses.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use senado_ceaps instead (cota parlamentar), and implies this tool is for administrative data. However, no other exclusions or when-to-use guidance for other siblings.

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