senado_tabelas_processo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the tool is safe and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns raw rows with count=0 when filter doesn't match, and that limit is capped at 1000. No contradictions or missing critical behaviors.

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 well-structured: starts with purpose, then return structure, then parameter details, and ends with usage tip. It is appropriately concise for the complexity, though could be slightly tighter.

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?

The description covers the return type (structure with tabela, count, total, linhas), parameter behavior, and typical usage. With an output schema present, the description adds enough context to use the tool effectively, though some return field details are left to the schema.

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 description coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description reiterates the parameter roles and adds context like default and max for 'limite', but does not provide significant additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 consults reference tables for legislative process, listing specific tables and the returned structure. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning it's used to resolve codes before using 'senado_search_processos'.

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 'Use para resolver códigos/siglas antes de filtrar em senado_search_processos e ferramentas afins.' This gives a clear use case and context. It could be improved by noting when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient.

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