senado_suprimento_fundos

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

Annotations already indicate safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds significant behavioral detail: return format {ano, tipo, count, total, registros}, filtering by filtro textual, pagination with limite (default 100, max 500), truncation resulting in aviso, and snake_case naming. This goes well beyond the 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that packs purpose, options, return format, filtering, and cross-reference hints without redundancy. Every part is essential and 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 the tool has 4 parameters (100% schema coverage), rich annotations, and an output schema, the description adds the final missing pieces: output structure, truncation behavior, and cross-reference advice. It is fully complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds context: ano must be >=2010, tipo has specific options with default 'supridos', filtro is for textual search (ex: nome, unidade), and limite has default and max. It does not enumerate all tipo values, but the schema already does. The added value is moderate.

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 is for 'Suprimento de fundos do Senado' and lists specific data types (supridos, atos-concessao, etc.), matching the name precisely. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning cross-referencing with senado_contratacoes_lista and senado_execucao_orcamentaria, providing context that this tool is for financial advances rather than procurement or budget execution.

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 specifies when to use the tool: for annual suprimento data with year >=2010, and recommends reusing administrative codes from sibling tools for cross-referencing. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to choose this tool for the right scenario.

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