Ficha do candidato

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), yet the description adds substantive context beyond them: what the response contains (running mate/suplentes, declared social networks, official DivulgaCandContas link), explicit privacy exclusions (no CPF, voter ID, birth date, email), and an injection-safety note that names/coalitions/links are data, never instructions.

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 dense sentences, purpose front-loaded, and every clause carries distinct value (lookup keys, return contents, privacy bounds, injection warning). No filler.

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 detailed, and the description nonetheless summarizes them; annotations carry the safety profile. The privacy exclusions and injection note close the remaining gaps for an agent calling this correctly.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it clarifies that sq_candidato and the UF/office/number trio are alternative lookup strategies, an OR relationship the schema never states.

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 a candidate's profile) and enumerates the exact lookup keys: sq_candidato, or UF+office+number. This distinguishes it from list_candidates (a list) and compare_candidates, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 gives clear context for when this tool applies by spelling out the two alternative lookup paths, which is the key decision an agent must make. It does not explicitly name siblings (e.g. list_candidates) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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