buscar_eventos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions search functionality and date filtering but doesn't describe pagination behavior (implied by parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what the return format looks like. For an 11-parameter search tool with no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 description is appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and scope, and one providing a practical tip. Both sentences add value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core functionality. It could be slightly improved by explicitly mentioning pagination or result format.

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?

Given the complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides adequate basic context about what the tool searches for and a useful tip about date filtering. However, it doesn't address important aspects like result format, pagination behavior, or how to interpret the search results, leaving the agent to infer these from parameter names alone.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, examples, defaults, and constraints. The description adds minimal value by specifically calling out 'dataInicio + dataFim' as a useful combination, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb ('busca') and resource ('eventos da Câmara dos Deputados') with examples of event types (reuniões, sessões, audiências). It distinguishes from siblings like 'detalhar_evento' by indicating this is a search/filtering tool rather than a detail view, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides implied usage guidance through the DICA (tip) about using date ranges for specific periods, suggesting this is useful for temporal filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus other event-related tools like 'eventos_deputado' or 'eventos_orgao', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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