despesas_deputado

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 effectively describes key behaviors: it returns complete fiscal documents that can generate extensive text, warns about potential overflow, and suggests mitigation strategies (using 'resumido' format or limiting items). However, it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides prerequisite guidance, and the third offers important usage warnings and optimization tips. Each sentence earns its place by adding critical information for the agent.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description does well by covering purpose, prerequisites, sibling differentiation, and behavioral warnings. However, it lacks details on output structure, pagination behavior, or error cases, which would be helpful for a tool with this many parameters and no output schema.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, providing comprehensive documentation for all 10 parameters. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, only mentioning the 'formato' parameter's effect on payload size. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter 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 clearly states the verb ('Lista') and resource ('despesas de um deputado da cota parlamentar'), making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning 'resumo_despesas_deputado' as an alternative for overview purposes, showing clear differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: it instructs to use 'buscar_deputados' first to obtain the ID, and recommends 'resumo_despesas_deputado' for an overview instead. It also includes warnings about potential text overflow and suggests using 'formato=resumido' to mitigate this, covering both prerequisites and exclusions.

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