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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns the 'most recent' status/tramitação rather than the full history, and that it includes ementa and keywords. However, it doesn't cover error behavior (e.g., invalid/deleted ID) or other potential side effects, which is a gap for a read tool with no annotation support.

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?

The description is compact: two short sentences plus a one-line instruction. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value (returns data, what data, how to get the id).

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?

The tool has a single parameter, and an output schema exists (given context), so the description needn't detail return values. It covers the key context: what the tool returns and how to obtain the required id. The only minor omission is not explicitly stating when to use this versus sibling tools for detailed variant views, though the content list hints at it.

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?

The schema only defines 'id' as an integer with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by clarifying that the id belongs to a PEC and that it should be obtained from listar_pecs, adding practical meaning beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Retorna os dados completos de uma PEC pelo seu id' – returns complete data of a PEC by ID. The list of included content (ementa, keywords, latest status) differentiates it from sibling tools that focus on specific aspects like tramitações or votacoes.

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 an explicit prerequisite: 'Obtenha o id com listar_pecs', which tells the agent to first list PECs to obtain the id. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but provides clear context for when this endpoint should be used (after listing, to fetch the full record).

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly signals this is a read operation that returns the result/detail of a vote and enumerates the included fields, which is useful behavioral context. It does not mention errors or permissions, but for a simple read tool with an output schema, this is adequate.

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 short sentences each add value: what the tool returns, what the response includes, and where to get the required id. It is front-loaded and contains 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the required input, its source, and the key result contents. The agent has everything needed to invoke it 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?

The schema only defines `id` as a string with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining what the id refers to and explicitly telling the agent how to obtain it via `listar_votacoes_pec`.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retorna') and resource ('detalhe/resultado de uma votação pelo seu id'), and it lists the meaningful output fields (descrição, órgão, aprovacao, placar). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like detalhar_pec or listar_votos_votacao.

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 gives an explicit usage instruction: obtain the `id` with `listar_votacoes_pec`. This establishes the prerequisite flow clearly. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the id-source instruction provides enough contextual guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('lists') without revealing whether it is read-only, what the output format is, pagination, error conditions, or any side effects. The one-line text is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action. There is no unnecessary detail or repetition, making it efficient for an agent to process.

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?

Despite having an output schema and only one parameter, the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify the meaning of the 'id' parameter, which is essential for correct invocation. Additionally, it does not mention any preconditions or typical use cases, leaving the agent under-informed for a tool that is otherwise trivial.

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 0%, so the description must explain the 'id' parameter. It does not mention that 'id' refers to the PEC identifier, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name. This is a critical gap; the description adds no value beyond the generic schema property.

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 clearly states the tool's function: listing the authors/presenters of a specific PEC, with examples of author types (deputados, senadores, órgãos). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like listar_pecs (list PECs) and detalhar_pec (detail a PEC).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or that it should be used when needing authors for a given PEC id. The context is implied but not explicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It communicates that this is a read operation and that no filtering is applied because the list is short, which is useful. It does not address data scope, ordering, or side effects, but for a simple read these are minor gaps.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a useful non-filtering note. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only listing backed by an output schema, the description is nearly adequate. However, it lacks explicit parameter semantics and usage-vs-alternative guidance, which are needed for fully confident invocation.

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% and the only parameter, id, is undocumented beyond its title. The description implies that id refers to a specific votação ('em uma votação'), providing partial semantics, but it never explicitly states what identifier is expected or where it comes from.

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 a specific resource: the orientation of each bench/party in a vote. The second sentence clarifies that it covers how leadership guided deputies to vote, distinguishing it from sibling tools like listar_votos_votacao, which deal with individual votes.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of sibling tools such as listar_votos_votacao or detalhar_votacao. The 'sem filtro' note explains an implementation detail, not selection criteria or prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys a read-only listing operation through 'Lista' and 'descobrir', discloses that filters are optional and combinable, and mentions automatic pagination with max_itens as a cap. It does not detail API limits, auth, or response format, but the output schema covers the latter.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage, then a compact parameter list. Every sentence adds value and no information is repeated from the schema.

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?

For a list tool with 8 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, all parameter semantics, and key behavioral details. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 0%, and the description fully compensates by documenting all 8 parameters with concrete examples (ano: 2023, keywords: 'reforma tributária'), value domains for ordenar_por and ordem, date format AAAA-MM-DD, and the meaning of max_itens as a result cap with automatic pagination.

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 first sentence 'Lista Propostas de Emenda à Constituição (PECs)' states a specific verb and resource, and the second clarifies its role as the discovery/ID-gathering entry point ('Use para descobrir PECs e obter o id de cada uma (necessário nas demais ferramentas)'). This clearly separates it from the detail and sub-resource sibling tools.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use this tool when it needs to discover PECs and obtain their ids for downstream tools, and notes filters are optional and combinable. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use exclusions, 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.

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return fields and chronological ordering, but omits the direction of the ordering info and the effect of max_itens. It also does not discuss pagination or limits, which matters for a listing tool.

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, direct sentences with no redundancy. The core purpose, output contents, and filtering option are all presented up front with minimal verbosity.

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-value structure is already covered. The description provides the essential purpose and date-filter semantics; the main gap is max_itens behavior, but the general context is sufficient for a straightforward call.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains data_inicio/data_fim and their AAAA-MM-DD format, but does not document id or max_itens. The id is inferable from context, but max_itens is left only with its schema title.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Lista') and a clear resource ('histórico de tramitação de uma PEC'), then details the output fields and chronological order. This distinguishes it from siblings such as listar_votacoes_pec and detalhar_pec, even without naming them.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for consulting the procedural history of a PEC, not for votes or general details. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it with alternatives, so it stops 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.

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

Sem anotações, a descrição deveria declarar que é uma operação de leitura e sem efeitos colaterais. O nome 'lista' sugere, e a descrição menciona apenas o retorno de IDs, sem detalhar permissões, paginação ou limitações.

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?

Duas frases objetivas, sem redundância; a informação essencial (que lista votações e retorna IDs) está no início, e o parágrafo adicional dá contexto útil sem alongar.

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?

A ferramenta é simples, mas a falta de explicação dos parâmetros (especialmente 'max_itens') é uma lacuna. O output schema cobre o retorno, mas o agente não saberá o significado exato do ID de entrada nem como controlar quantidade de resultados.

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?

Com 0% de cobertura no schema, a descrição não compensa: não explica que o parâmetro 'id' se refere ao ID da PEC nem o efeito de 'max_itens' (padrão 100). Apenas o retorno de ID é mencionado, não os parâmetros de entrada.

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?

Descreve acção específica — listar votações de uma PEC — e identifica o propósito dos IDs retornados, diferenciando-o dos siblings de detalhe e de listagem de votos.

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?

Indica o contexto (votações de uma PEC) e explica que os IDs são usados por três ferramentas a jusante, mas não menciona explicitamente quando não usar ou alternativas. Possui contexto claro, sem exclusões.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses an important edge case (symbolic votings return empty) and describes the content of each item. It stops short of covering auth, ordering, or pagination behavior, but the output schema likely covers the return structure.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the core purpose, the returned item fields, and the symbolic-voting caveat. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

For a simple two-parameter list tool, the description covers purpose, item shape, and the key edge case; the output schema handles return fields. However, the 0% schema parameter coverage and lack of explicit parameter explanation leave `max_itens` and alternative routing incomplete.

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 0% and the description does not explicitly define `id` or `max_itens`. `id` is inferable as the voting ID from 'em uma votação', but `max_itens` is left entirely to inference, including what it caps and whether it controls pagination.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Lista') and a precise resource: the nominal vote of each deputy in a given voting. It lists the returned fields (deputy name, party, UF, tipoVoto), which makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like listar_votacoes_pec or listar_orientacoes_votacao.

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 implies when the tool is useful by stating that only electronic-record votings have nominal votes and symbolic votings return an empty list. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer a sibling tool, so the guidance is present but implicit.

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