senado_textos_materia

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

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as authentication needs, side effects, or behavior when no texts are available. It only states what the tool does, not how it behaves.

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 concisely conveys the purpose and output, with no redundant information. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter input and no output schema, the description adequately explains the function and return type (URLs). However, it lacks details about possible results (e.g., empty response) or error handling, which would enhance completeness.

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% description coverage (codigoMateria described as 'Código único da matéria'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or guidelines for the parameter.

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 specifies the action (Obtém), the resource (textos disponíveis de uma matéria), and the content (inicial, substitutivo, final) with download URLs. It distinguishes from sibling tools like senado_obter_materia, which retrieves the matter itself.

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 texts of a matter are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor does it mention alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., how to obtain the códigoMateria).

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