Quando é a eleição

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds provenance context by promising an 'fonte oficial', which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about data freshness, error behavior, or coverage limits beyond what the schema implies.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the returned content and followed by the user questions it answers. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is not required, and the read-only annotations cover the safety profile. What remains thin is scope: it does not say whether it covers a single election/round or any date passed via 'on', leaving a small inference gap for a zero-required-parameter tool.

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% and the single 'on' parameter is fully documented in the schema (AAAA-MM-DD, default today, Brasília time). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the 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?

The description names a concrete subject (data e horário da votação, turnos, cargos em disputa, fonte oficial), so an agent immediately knows this returns election schedule facts rather than candidate or polling-place data. It never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like find_polling_place or list_candidates, but the subject matter is distinctive enough that confusion is unlikely.

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 maps two user intents directly onto the tool ('quando é a eleição' and 'até que horas posso votar'), which gives clear context for invocation. It offers no exclusions or explicit alternatives, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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