detalhar_legislatura

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what data format is returned, potential error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description only states what the tool does at a high level without any operational context.

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 - a single Portuguese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. While the purpose is clear, it doesn't address what 'detalhes' (details) actually means - what specific information is returned about a legislature. Given the lack of structured metadata about behavior and output, the description should provide more context about what users can 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?

The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides (100% coverage). The schema clearly documents that 'id' is a required number representing the legislature ID. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the description doesn't add value but the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 ('Obtém detalhes' - Gets details) and resource ('de uma legislatura específica' - of a specific legislature), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'buscar_legislaturas' (which likely lists multiple legislatures), but the focus on a single specific legislature is clear from the description.

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. There's no mention of when to choose this over 'buscar_legislaturas' (which likely returns a list) or other detail-oriented tools like 'detalhar_deputado' or 'detalhar_proposicao'. No context about prerequisites, timing, or use cases is provided.

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