Contato da campanha (TSE + Receita)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does well: it discloses the two external data sources, the exact fields returned, the coverage boundary, and the one-at-a-time constraint. It omits failure behavior — what happens when the candidate is not found in TSE or the CNPJ is missing from OpenCNPJ (error vs. partial result) — which matters for a chained lookup.

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 main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the supplementary payload, scope limits, and cardinality constraint. Efficient overall, though the scope sentence ('não cobre prefeitos nem senadores em mandato') sits slightly at odds with the earlier mention of senadores and could be tightened.

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, no-output-schema lookup, the description explains both sources and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows what it will get. The remaining gap is behavior on missing or ambiguous matches, which is the one thing an agent cannot infer here.

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 100% and the schema already explains that 'politico' accepts a name, partial name, or sq code. The description only adds the constraint that only one politician can be queried per call; it adds nothing about matching behavior for partial names or ambiguity resolution.

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 concrete two-step operation: fetch the candidate's 2026 campaign CNPJ from TSE open data, then look that CNPJ up in OpenCNPJ (Receita Federal) for email, phone and address. It also names the extra payload (coligação, resultado, DivulgaCandContas link), which makes it clearly distinct from generic siblings like buscar_politicos or detalhes_politico.

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 explicit applicability and exclusions: works for 2026 governor/senator/deputy candidates, does not cover mayors or sitting senators, and handles one politician per call. It never names an alternative sibling (e.g. detalhes_politico) for the excluded cases, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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