Onde voto

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and determinism are covered. The description adds the accepted-input constraint (no name/CPF/título), which is useful scope context, but nothing about the round default behavior or what is returned when no polling place is found.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the resource and the input source before the exclusion. Every clause either defines the lookup or prevents a wrong call.

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, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers purpose, inputs, and the main misuse case, though the optional 'round' parameter's behavior is left entirely to the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so uf/zone/section/round are already documented in the schema, including zero-padding and the exterior 'ZZ' case. The description only restates that these three come from the título; it adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Encontra o local de votação') and pins the exact inputs (UF, zona, seção) taken from the voter registration card. It also carves out what it does not do (nome, CPF, número do título), which implicitly separates it from the lookup-by-name sibling.

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?

Gives a clear negative condition — it does not accept name, CPF, or title number — and routes the user to e-Título to discover their own zone and section. It stops short of naming the sibling tool (search_polling_places) as the alternative for name-based queries, so the routing is external rather than in-catalog.

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