senado_vetos

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that 'aviso' indicates truncation, and details return fields. 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?

Concise, well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second explains return format, third provides usage guidelines. No wasted words; essential information front-loaded.

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 output schema exists, description still adds value by explaining the structure and enums. Covers all relevant aspects: filtering, truncation, and alternative tool for different purpose.

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?

All 3 parameters have descriptions in schema (100% coverage). Description adds default behavior for 'limite', clarifies 'ano' vs 'status' mutual exclusivity, and explains status enum values beyond schema.

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 lists presidential vetoes under consideration by the National Congress, by year or status, and specifies the return structure. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'senado_resultado_veto' used for voting results.

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?

Explicit instructions: use 'ano' OR 'status' (with enum values explained), and 'limite' for truncation. Directs to 'senado_resultado_veto' for different use case. Provides clear context for when to use this tool.

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