senado_terceirizados

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral details: the complete list is downloaded and filtered in the Worker, results are limited to 'limite' (default 50, max 500) with a warning when truncated. This adds value beyond 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 concise, two sentences long. It front-loads the purpose, then provides details on output structure and behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 complexity (filtered list, optional parameters), the description is complete. It explains output structure, filter behavior, result limits, and points to a related sibling tool. An output schema exists, so return values are covered.

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% (all 4 parameters described in schema). The description adds semantic meaning: filtering is partial and without accents (busca parcial, sem acento), and explains the behavior of 'limite' parameter (default, max, and truncation warning).

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 lists outsourced employees of the Senate, with filtering options. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'senado_empresas_contratadas' by noting that tool is for contracted companies and their contracts.

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 guidance: when to use this tool (to list outsourced employees) and when to use an alternative ('Para a empresa contratante e seus contratos, use senado_empresas_contratadas'). It also explains filtering behavior and result limitations.

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