Listar eleições

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the data source (official TSE config), scope (ordinary elections and available history), and returned fields, while the verb 'Lista' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state absence of side effects, permissions, or rate limits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and then the usage condition. Every sentence adds distinct value without redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully explained. With no parameters and no annotations, the description still gives enough context: what is listed, which data source is used, and when to call it instead of `resultado`.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to add. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to explain parameters and correctly focuses on output scope and usage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('eleições ordinárias'), and names the fields returned (ciclo, código, data, turno, cargos). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `resultado` by stating it should be used first when the active election is unknown.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: before `resultado` if the user does not know which election is currently active. The alternative tool is named and the selecting condition is clear, leaving little to inference.

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