Candidatos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: explicit PII exclusions (no CPF, título de eleitor, birth date or email) and a prompt-injection safety note that names/links are data, not 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and how it can be filtered, followed by the privacy and injection-safety caveats. No filler, though the two safety sentences could be tightened into one.

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 no explanation. For an eight-parameter, read-only list tool the description covers purpose, filters, and privacy/safety guarantees adequately; only sibling routing is missing.

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 schema already documents all eight parameters including the uf/office/party/name semantics. The description restates the filter options but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema; 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?

States a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('os candidatos de um cargo numa UF') with scope clarification ('BR para presidente'), which lets an agent distinguish it from get_candidate or compare_candidates 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?

The description conveys the filter context ('com filtro por partido ou por nome de urna ou nome civil'), implying when the tool is appropriate, but it never names an alternative or states when NOT to use it (e.g., versus get_candidate for a single record). Usage is inferable but not routed.

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