senado_votacoes_recentes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it fetches votes, omitting details about side effects, authentication, rate limits, or output format. This is minimal transparency for a data retrieval operation.

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?

Two concise sentences, no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core action and purpose, making it efficient.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple data retrieval tool with one parameter, but lacks information about return format, sorting, or limitations. Given no output schema, additional details would improve 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond restating the purpose, resulting in a baseline score.

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 it retrieves recent plenary votes for a configurable number of days. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from siblings like senado_listar_votacoes and senado_obter_votacao.

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 mentions it is useful for tracking recent legislative activity but does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or suggest alternatives. The context of sibling tools provides implicit guidance, but no explicit usage boundaries.

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