Buscar políticos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Lista' implies a read-only operation and the description explains the semantics of the behavior dimension, but it says nothing about result volume, pagination/limite behavior, or what an empty result means.

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 sentences, zero waste: capability first, then a concrete example. The example earns its place by tying filters to a realistic query.

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 an 11-parameter, all-optional filter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys what can be filtered and what the behavior codes mean at a high level. What remains uncovered (result shape, pagination beyond 'limite', behavior with zero matches) is minor but not fully absent.

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 91%, so nearly every parameter's meaning is already documented in the schema. The description repeats the filter list (nome, UF, cargo, partido, situação, município) and the four behavior categories without adding syntax, defaults, or interaction rules beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Lista políticos monitorados') and enumerates the filter dimensions, including the distinctive behavior filter relative to Flávio. The scope is unambiguous and clearly different from a detail or ranking tool, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 example question ('quais deputados federais do PL de SP não citaram o Flávio?') gives concrete usage context that maps directly onto the filters, so an agent knows when this tool fits. It stops short of stating exclusions or naming alternatives like detalhes_politico or ranking.

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