senado_ecidadania_obter_evento

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. The description only lists output contents without behavioral context.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and included data. It is front-loaded and concise, though could be slightly expanded without losing brevity.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return contents. However, given no annotations or output schema, it would benefit from noting that it is a read operation and specifying the response format.

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 single parameter 'id' is described in the schema as 'ID do evento' (100% coverage). The tool description adds no further semantic meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool obtains details of an interactive event, specifying included information (agenda, guests, video link). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like listar_eventos which list events.

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?

Usage is implied from the description, but no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., listar_eventos for listing, obter_consulta for consultations). No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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