Resultado por UF

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait – results are 'parcial' (partial) and 'oficial' – and defines the ano defaulting rule. It says nothing about pagination, data freshness, or rate/auth constraints, so the disclosure is partial rather than complete.

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?

Dense, front-loaded, and telegraphic – the core purpose comes first, followed by the parameter notes. Slightly run-on due to stacked parentheticals, but no sentence is wasted.

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 described. Still, for a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the omission of limite semantics and the lack of any sibling-routing guidance leaves gaps an agent would have to guess at.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it largely does: cargo values are fully enumerated, turno is bounded to 1/2, ano's default behavior is explained, and uf gets a hint ('BR' for president). The fifth parameter, limite (default 20), is never mentioned, leaving pagination semantics undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: retrieve the official partial result for a given office (cargo) in a given state (UF), with the BR special case for president. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like municipio (city-level) and resumo_brasil (national summary), though the sibling contrast is left implicit.

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 enumerates valid cargo values, restricts turno to 1 or 2, and explains the ano default, which is useful operational guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over municipio or resumo_brasil, so the routing decision is only implied by the UF scope.

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