senado_ecidadania_consultas_polarizadas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the tool returns filtered consultations, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or comment on side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The description is adequate but not detailed beyond the core behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word adds value, and there is no fluff. It is appropriately sized for its purpose.

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 filtered-list tool with a schema rich in parameter info, the description covers the high-level purpose but omits details like pagination, ordering, or result format. It does not mention the adjustable margin or minimum votes, though those are in the schema. Completeness is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, merely restating the overall purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter explanation.

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 returns consultations with balanced voting (~50/50), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like senado_ecidadania_consultas_consensuais and senado_ecidadania_listar_consultas. The verb 'Retorna' and resource 'consultas com votação equilibrada' are specific and actionable.

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 usage for identifying polarized themes but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., consensuais or listar). No when-not or exclusion criteria are mentioned. The context is implied but not formalized.

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