senado_votos_materia

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the output structure (codigoMateria, count, votacoes with fields data, descricao, resultado, placar) and the effect of incluirVotos (adding votos[]), which is beyond the annotation scope.

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 compact yet comprehensive: it states the purpose in one sentence, details the return structure, explains the optional parameter's effect, and provides prerequisite guidance. No redundant 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?

Given the two parameters, full annotation coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers all relevant aspects: what the tool does, required input, optional parameter behavior, output format, and how to obtain the required parameter. No gaps.

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 enhances understanding by explaining that incluirVotos (default false) adds a votos array with nome, partido, uf, voto for each senator, and that codigoMateria is the unique code, providing context beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'Obtém as votações de uma matéria pelo codigoMateria', specifying the verb (obtém), resource (votações de uma matéria), and the required identifier (codigoMateria). It distinguishes from siblings like senado_buscar_materias (search) and senado_obter_materia (details) by focusing on voting data.

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 recommends obtaining codigoMateria via senado_buscar_materias or senado_obter_materia, providing clear prerequisite guidance. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool, the focused purpose implies the context.

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