senado_votacoes_senador

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (lists votes) but omits details like return format, pagination, data freshness, or side effects. For a read operation, this is minimally acceptable but not transparent.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words, directly states purpose. Highly concise 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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should explain return values. It vaguely mentions showing how the senator voted, but lacks specifics (e.g., fields, structure). Given 4 parameters and many siblings, more context about output 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?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-specific information 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?

Description clearly states it lists votes of a specific senator, showing voting behavior. It uses a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('votações de um senador'), and is distinguishable from siblings like senado_listar_votacoes or senado_votos_materia by focusing on a single senator.

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 (when you need votes of a specific senator), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like senado_votos_materia or senado_obter_votacao. No exclusions or best practices are mentioned.

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