senado_ecidadania_sugerir_tema_enquete

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it analyzes and suggests, but does not confirm if the tool is read-only (no destructive hint) or if it requires special permissions. The avoidance criteria are mentioned, but side effects or output format are omitted.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key constraint. No wasted words.

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 complexity (nested object parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too brief. It does not explain what the tool returns, whether the suggestion is persisted, or how to interpret results. More context is needed for effective use.

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 coverage is 0% for the top-level parameter, but the nested properties have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'based on configurable criteria', which is already implied by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema descriptions exist, but the description does not compensate for gaps.

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's verb ('Analisa e sugere') and resource ('temas para enquete mensal'), and differentiates from sibling list/obter tools by focusing on suggestion. It also adds a constraint ('Evita temas muito polarizados ou com consenso total'), further clarifying its purpose.

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 suggesting monthly poll themes with configurable criteria, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like listar or obter. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.

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