listar_tramitacoes_pec

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.