senado_ecidadania_obter_consulta

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It indicates a read operation and mentions data returned, but does not disclose potential errors, authentication, rate limits, or side effects beyond the obvious.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key outputs.

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 provides a good overview of the return content (votes, author, comments). It is complete for a single-ID retrieval tool, though it might omit edge cases or full field list, which is acceptable for this complexity level.

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 already describes the single parameter 'id' with a brief description. The tool description adds context about what is returned (votes, author, comments) but does not add further meaning to the parameter itself. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline 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?

The description clearly states the action (Obtém detalhes) and the resource (consulta pública específica), and lists included data (votos, autor, comentários). It distinguishes from sibling list tools by specifying a single consultation retrieval.

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 when you have a specific consultation ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like listar_consultas, or provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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