senado_tabelas_plenario

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the return format (`{ tabela, count, total, linhas }`) and the behavior of `filtro` (text search) and `limite` (result cutoff with default 100). 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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose, then details return format and parameter behavior. It covers all needed information without extraneous text.

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 and the presence of a complete output schema (mentioned in context), the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, return format, and usage context. It could mention pagination if any, but for a reference table lookup it seems 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 descriptions, but the description adds operational context: 'filtro faz busca textual' and 'limite corta o resultado (padrão 100)', clarifying how they affect the query beyond the schema's basic 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 clearly states it provides reference tables for the plenary to resolve codes and domains, explicitly listing the three tables (tipos-sessao, tipos-comparecimento, legislaturas) and mentioning its use to interpret fields like 'tipo' from sibling tools. This distinguishes it from other tools.

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 tells when to use it: 'Use para interpretar campos como `tipo` retornados por `senado_agenda_plenario` e `senado_resultado_plenario`.' It implies a consultative role but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, though the sibling context makes it clear.

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