buscar_legislaturas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action ('busca') without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), pagination behavior (though parameters hint at it), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 a single, efficient sentence ('Busca legislaturas da Câmara dos Deputados') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It could be slightly more informative, but it's appropriately sized for its minimal content, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 (a search tool with 5 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or how parameters interact (e.g., pagination defaults). With schema coverage at 100%, parameters are documented, but overall context for effective use is lacking.

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%, with all 5 parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'data' for date search, 'pagina' for page number). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting but doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.

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 'Busca legislaturas da Câmara dos Deputados' clearly states the verb ('busca' - search) and resource ('legislaturas' - legislatures), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'detalhar_legislatura' (detail legislature) or specify what 'search' entails (e.g., filtering, listing). This makes it adequate but vague about scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'detalhar_legislatura' for detailed views or clarify if this is for listing all legislatures versus filtered searches. Without any context on prerequisites or alternatives, usage is unclear.

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