senado_tabelas_plenario

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the return structure and the list of available tables, which is sufficient transparency. 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 three sentences: purpose, return format with table choices, and parameter behavior. Every sentence adds value, no filler, and it front-loads the primary action.

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 simplicity, the description covers the return format, available tables, and parameter usage. It also provides context by linking to other tools. It could elaborate on table contents or edge cases, but it is sufficiently complete.

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 parameter descriptions. The description adds 'filtro faz busca textual' and 'limite corta o resultado (padrão 100)', which only slightly rephrases the schema. It does not provide substantially new meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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 it returns reference tables for the plenary to resolve codes and domains, naming the three specific tables and the return format. It also mentions its use for interpreting fields from other tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'senado_tabelas_processo' or 'senado_tabelas_referencia', which may have similar purposes.

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 provides explicit use cases: to interpret 'tipo' fields from 'senado_agenda_plenario' and 'senado_resultado_plenario'. It does not include when not to use or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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