senado_votacoes_senador

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies the return structure (periodo, count, votos), each vote's fields, ordering from most recent to oldest, default period behavior (current year), and date format requirements. No contradictions with 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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then covers return format, period options, prerequisites, and alternative tool. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

For a list tool with 4 parameters (1 required), rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers how to get the senator code, period specification, return structure, ordering, and alternative tool. Minor omission: no mention of pagination or error handling, but the output schema likely covers the return format.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the alternative period specification (ano or dataInicio/dataFim) and the date format (YYYYMMDD), as well as linking to senado_listar_senadores for codigoSenador.

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 nominal votes of a senator with voting details. It references sibling tools for obtaining the senator code and for specific vote details, but does not explicitly differentiate from other vote-listing tools like senado_votos_materia.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (to list a senator's votes), how to obtain the required parameter codigoSenador via senado_listar_senadores, and suggests senado_obter_votacao for detailed vote information. It also explains period options and defaults.

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