senado_servidores

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Description adds value by detailing truncation behavior with `aviso` and the return structure, including specific fields returned.

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?

Two sentences: first covers purpose and parameters, second covers return format, truncation warning, and sibling references. No wasted words, front-loaded.

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 5 optional parameters, no required ones, and existence of output schema (summarized), the description fully equips an agent with usage context, truncation handling, and alternative tools. 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%, baseline 3. Description adds meaning by listing `situacao` enum options, noting partial search for `nome`, `lotacao`, `cargo`, and specifying `limite` default/max. Surpasses baseline.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Lista servidores do Senado por `situacao`', listing specific filter options. It distinguishes from sibling tools like `senado_remuneracoes_servidores` and `senado_pessoal_tabelas`.

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 states when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Para remuneração use `senado_remuneracoes_servidores`; para estagiários/pensionistas/quantitativos use `senado_pessoal_tabelas`.' Also provides guidance on `limite` and truncation refinement.

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