senado_tabelas_processo

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

Annotations already indicate safe read-only behavior. Description adds key behavioral details: return format 'tabela, count, total, linhas', optional 'filtro' applied to sigla/description, default 'limite' of 200 (max 1000), and that 'count' is 0 when no match. 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?

Description is reasonably concise and well-structured: starts with purpose, then return format, then parameter details, then usage guidance. Could be slightly more compact, but no unnecessary sentences.

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 presence of output schema and annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool returns, parameter constraints, usage context (resolving codes for search tools), and edge cases (count=0). Fully adequate for agent invocation.

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?

Input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description reinforces the purpose of 'filtro' (over sigla/description) and 'limite' (default 200, max 1000) but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states the tool consults reference tables for legislative processes, enumerates the specific tables via 'tabela' parameter, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by stating its purpose is to resolve codes before filtering in 'senado_search_processos' and related 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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (resolve codes before filtering in 'senado_search_processos' and related tools) and mentions edge cases (count=0 when filter doesn't match). Does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is clear.

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