buscar_proposicoes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool searches by various criteria, which implies it's a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state this. It provides a usage tip about parameter combinations, which adds some behavioral context, but doesn't cover other aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description adds value but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 and well-structured: one sentence stating the purpose, followed by a practical tip. Every sentence earns its place, with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and provides actionable guidance efficiently.

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 (19 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains the purpose and provides usage guidance, which helps, but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what the return format looks like, pagination details, or error scenarios. For a search tool with many parameters, more context about results structure would be beneficial.

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 19 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It provides general advice about starting with few parameters, but this doesn't enhance the semantic understanding of individual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Busca proposições legislativas (PLs, PECs, MPs, etc.) por diversos critérios.' It specifies the resource (legislative propositions) and the action (search by various criteria). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'detalhar_proposicao' or 'ranking_proposicoes_autor', which might have overlapping 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 explicit usage guidance: 'DICA: Comece com poucos parâmetros (ex: siglaTipo + ano, ou apenas keywords) e adicione filtros gradualmente.' This tells the agent how to approach using the tool effectively, including starting with minimal parameters and adding filters gradually. This is practical advice for optimal tool invocation.

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