senado_ecidadania_eventos_populares

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool returns popular events but does not disclose ordering behavior (e.g., sorted by comment count), pagination, or read-only status. Beyond the basic purpose, it lacks behavioral details.

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 sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no extraneous information. Every word is necessary.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description sufficiently covers the essential distinction needed for tool selection. It could be slightly more detailed (e.g., mentioning that results are presumably sorted), but it is generally complete for this context.

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 both parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 without adding value.

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 specifies the verb 'Retorna' (returns) and the resource 'eventos' (events), and adds a distinguishing scope 'com mais comentários e perguntas dos cidadãos' (with most comments and questions from citizens). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like 'senado_ecidadania_listar_eventos' which likely lists events without this popularity filter.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contrast with similar sibling tools such as 'senado_ecidadania_listar_eventos' or 'senado_ecidadania_obter_evento'.

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