buscar_orgaos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the search behavior (partial name matching, case-insensitive) and preference for acronym search, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior (though parameters exist), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the response format looks like. For a search tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, 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 extremely concise - just two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and main usage patterns. Every word earns its place, with clear examples that help understanding without unnecessary elaboration.

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 search tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. While it covers the core search functionality well, it doesn't address pagination behavior, result format, or error conditions. The high parameter count and lack of output schema mean users need more context about what to expect from this tool.

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 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by explaining the search logic for 'sigla' and 'nome' parameters (acronym vs. partial name search, case-insensitive), but doesn't provide additional context for the other 7 parameters 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 tool searches for 'órgãos da Câmara' (chamber bodies) and provides specific examples of what types of bodies are included (commissions, boards, councils, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'detalhar_orgao' (which details a specific body) by focusing on search functionality.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: when searching for bodies by acronym (e.g., 'CE') or by partial name (e.g., 'educação'). It mentions that acronym search is preferred if known, offering some usage guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives like 'detalhar_orgao' for getting detailed information about a known body.

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