senado_votacao_comissao

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the return format (fields like codigo, data, comissao, etc.), no pagination, and parameter interactions, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured with an overview sentence, bullet-like explanation of each mode, output format details, and references to other tools. It is concise yet thorough, with no unnecessary words.

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?

For a tool with three modes, 9 parameters, and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: required parameters per mode, optional filters, output format, and how to obtain prerequisite data. It is fully complete given the complexity.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning by explaining which parameters are required based on the 'por' value, and how optional filters like 'comissao' work. This contextual usage information is highly valuable 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 'Lista votações em comissões' and explains the three modes (comissao, senador, materia) with specific requirements. It distinguishes from sibling tool senado_votos_materia for plenary votes, meeting the high standard for purpose clarity.

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 on when to use each mode, required parameters, and tells the user to obtain siglas from senado_listar_comissoes and codigoSenador from senado_listar_senadores. It also directs users to senado_votos_materia for plenary votes, offering clear alternatives.

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