Legenda dos códigos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the content categories covered (cargos, situações, redes, níveis de citação) and methodology, but does not describe the return format or whether the response is text, structured data, or exhaustive.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that lists the relevant code types and methodology without filler. Every element contributes to understanding the tool's scope.

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, zero-parameter explanatory tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it says what codes and methodology are explained. It could be slightly richer by indicating the return format, but the essential scope is clear.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not a concern. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately does not need to explain inputs.

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 states a specific verb ('Explica') and resource ('códigos usados nos dados... e a metodologia'), making clear it is an explanatory/metadata tool. It does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools, but its purpose is distinct from data-retrieval siblings like buscar_politicos or ranking.

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 the tool is for understanding codes and methodology, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or prerequisites. No when/when-not conditions or sibling references are provided.

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