Ranking de 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 and largely fails to. It never confirms this is a read-only operation, never states sort direction, tie-breaking, or pagination behavior, and gives no indication of the response shape despite there being no output schema. The only behavioral hint ('que mais citaram') implies descending order but leaves it unstated.

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, front-loaded with what the ranking measures, with the metric list and filter pointer following. No filler. Slightly terse to the point of omitting needed information, but nothing is redundant.

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 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the 'what' adequately but not the 'what comes back'. An agent knows it gets a ranking of politicians by a chosen metric, but not the fields per entry (position, metric value, name, party) or ordering guarantees. This is minimum viable rather than complete.

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 80%, so most parameters (uf, desde, ate, nome, cargo, partido, situacao, municipio) are already documented in the schema, and metrica's four values are in the schema enum. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond repeating the metric names. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 — ranks politicians by how much they cited Flávio — and enumerates the four metrics that define the ranking, so the agent knows exactly what the output orders. It also references the buscar_politicos filter set, which separates it from the plain search sibling. It does not differentiate itself from estatisticas_agrupadas, which is the closest ambiguous alternative.

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?

"Aceita os mesmos filtros de buscar_politicos" gives useful context about the filter model but is a schema hint, not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to pick ranking over buscar_politicos or estatisticas_agrupadas, nor any exclusion. Usage is only implied by the word 'Ranking'.

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