senado_buscar_materias

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It correctly indicates a search action but does not specify output details like pagination, result limits, or whether it returns multiple matches. The description implies return of matching matters but lacks depth.

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?

Description is a single 15-word sentence that immediately states the purpose and lists criteria. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary information.

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 no output schema, the description should provide some expectation of the return value (e.g., list of matters with basic details). It does not mention output format or contrast with sibling tools like senado_obter_materia. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100% with all 7 parameters described in the schema. The description adds only a brief list of example types, which does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema definitions. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it searches for legislative matters with specific verb (Busca) and resource (matérias legislativas). It lists multiple search criteria including examples of types (PEC, PL, PLP, MPV), distinguishing it from sibling tools like senado_obter_materia (get a specific matter) or senado_listar_votacoes.

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?

Description provides clear context on when to use the tool: when searching by criteria such as type, number, year, keyword, author, or rapporteur. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as when the specific matter ID is known (which would favor senado_obter_materia).

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