detalhar_votacao

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.