senado_votos_materia

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

No annotations provided; description partially discloses behavior (returns scores and nominal votes when available), but lacks info on side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. It is adequate but minimal.

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 front-loading the purpose with no extraneous words. Every part earns its place.

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?

Simple lookup tool with one parameter; description covers core purpose and output type. Missing details on error handling or what happens when no votes exist, but overall adequate given simplicity.

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?

Only one parameter with schema description (Código único da matéria). Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema, and schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (obtém) and resource (resultado de votações de uma matéria), specifying content (placar e votos nominais) and condition (quando disponíveis). It distinguishes from siblings like senado_obter_votacao (focused on a specific voting) and senado_listar_votacoes (lists votings).

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives. For example, senado_obter_votacao might provide more detail on a single voting; description does not clarify distinction or prerequisites.

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