senado_votos_materia

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. It adds value by describing the return structure and the effect of the optional parameter (adding votos array with specific fields). No behavioral traits contradict 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and return, and all words are necessary. No fluff or repetition. It efficiently covers function, output, optional parameter, and input source.

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 2 parameters, good schema descriptions, annotations, and an output schema (though not provided), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns (including nested structure), optional behavior, and how to obtain the required input. No obvious gaps for selection and 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?

Input schema has 100% parameter descriptions, but the description adds meaningful context: for codigoMateria it tells how to obtain it, and for incluirVotos it details the structure of the votos array (nome, partido, uf, voto). This goes beyond the schema's basic 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?

Description clearly states the tool gets votes of a specific matter by its code, and distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing how to obtain the codigoMateria from senado_buscar_materias or senado_obter_materia. The verb 'obtém' and resource 'votações de uma matéria' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies appropriate usage when votes of a specific matter are needed, and explicitly mentions alternative sources for the input parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other voting-related siblings like senado_obter_votacao or senado_votacoes_senador.

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