senado_videos_taquigrafia

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) are consistent. The description adds context about the source of the id and the output structure, which is transparent and non-contradictory.

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 (approximately 4-5 lines) with the main purpose front-loaded. It efficiently includes return details, parameter guidance, and links to sibling tools 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 (3 parameters, clear output structure), the description fully covers how to use it, where to get the id, and how to complement with related tools. It is complete and actionable.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description reinforces the schema by explaining 'id' as a session/meeting code, 'tipo' default, and 'orador' filter. It adds marginal value beyond the 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 videos/audios from a session or committee meeting, specifies the return structure with fields, and distinguishes from sibling tools like senado_notas_taquigraficas that provide transcripts.

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 explains how to obtain the required 'id' parameter by referencing related tools (senado_agenda_plenario, senado_resultado_plenario, senado_reuniao_comissao) and suggests filtering by 'orador' and using senado_notas_taquigraficas for transcripts. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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