buscar_votacoes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions search functionality but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like pagination behavior (implied by 'pagina' and 'itens' parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no parameters are provided (all parameters are optional). The tip about starting with date ranges or proposition ID is helpful context, but more behavioral details would improve transparency.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured: one clear purpose statement followed by a practical usage tip. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the most important guidance immediately following the purpose statement. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains the purpose and gives usage tips, but doesn't describe the return format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a search tool with many parameters and no output schema, more context about what results to expect would be helpful. The description is complete enough for basic usage but not comprehensive.

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 with descriptions, examples, defaults, and constraints. The description adds marginal value by suggesting two common usage patterns (date range vs. proposition ID search), but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's already 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's purpose: 'Busca votações realizadas na Câmara dos Deputados' (Searches for votes held in the Chamber of Deputies). This specifies the verb ('busca') and resource ('votações'), and the location context is helpful. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'votacoes_evento', 'votacoes_orgao', or 'votacoes_proposicao', which appear to be more specific variants.

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 usage guidance: 'DICA: Comece com dataInicio + dataFim para buscar votações em um período, ou use idProposicao para votações de uma proposição específica.' This gives practical advice on when to use different parameter combinations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus the more specific sibling tools (e.g., 'votacoes_proposicao'), which would be needed for a perfect score.

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