senado_votacao_comissao

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

Discloses read-only nature (consistent with readOnlyHint), return structure (objeto com por, contexto, count, votacoes e detalhes de cada votação), and absence of pagination ('Sem paginação'). Adds important behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the required parameters for each mode and optional period filters.

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 comprehensive but slightly verbose; it could be tightened slightly. However, it is well-structured: starts with purpose, then breaks down each mode, then describes return format, then tips. Front-loading is good. Still, a 4 reflects minor room for trimming without losing clarity.

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 9 parameters, 3 modes, and presence of output schema and annotations, the description covers all necessary context: required parameters for each mode, optional filters (comissao, dataInicio/dataFim), return structure, no pagination, and references to related tools. No gaps identified for correct tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and schema descriptions are adequate. Description goes significantly beyond by explaining the three query axes with their required and optional parameters, cross-referencing external tools for values, and describing the return format. This adds substantial meaning for correct parameter selection.

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?

Clearly states 'Lista votações em comissões' (lists committee votes), and then details three query modes (by committee, senator, or matter). Distinguishes from sibling tool senado_votos_materia (plenary votes) and cross-references auxiliary tools for obtaining codes. Purpose is specific and well-differentiated.

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?

Explicitly specifies when to use each mode: por=comissao requires siglaComissao, por=senador requires codigoSenador, por=materia requires sigla, numero, ano. Also gives alternative tool name (senado_votos_materia) for plenary votes and references senado_listar_comissoes/senado_listar_senadores for prerequisites. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are clear.

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