senado_vetos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that the tool returns a specific object structure (`{ count, total, aviso?, vetos }`) with fields like `codigo`, `ementa`, `emTramitacao`, and `dataLimiteVotacao`. It also explains that `limite` controls truncation and `aviso` indicates truncation. While it doesn't discuss potential rate limits or data freshness, the given context is sufficient 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 two sentences plus a concise output example. No redundant phrases; every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but is efficient and front-loaded with action and constraints.

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 no required parameters and a clear output schema described, the description covers usage constraints (mutual exclusion of parameters), output format, and links to the sibling tool for follow-up. It is complete for a read-only query tool with good annotations and schema coverage.

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 has 100% coverage for all 3 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds mutual exclusivity constraint ('Informe `ano` OU `status`') not enforced by schema, and clarifies the meaning of `status` enum values beyond the schema's brief descriptions (e.g., 'tramitando = pós-RCN 1/2013 em tramitação'). This extra context justifies a score of 4.

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 it lists presidential vetos under Congressional consideration, by year or status. It distinguishes from sibling `senado_resultado_veto` by explicitly directing to that tool for voting results. The verb 'lista' is specific to the resource 'vetos presidenciais', making purpose unambiguous.

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 instructs to provide `ano` or `status` (not both), and explains each status option. It explicitly names the alternative tool `senado_resultado_veto` for voting outcomes, guiding when not 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.