eventos_orgao

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. It only states the basic function without mentioning pagination behavior (implied by 'pagina' and 'itens' parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the returned events will have. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient behavioral 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 a single, clear sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded and wastes no space on redundant information.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'eventos' means in this context, what data the events contain, how pagination works, or any constraints on date ranges. The user must infer everything from parameter names alone.

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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 'Lista os eventos de um órgão da Câmara' clearly states the action (list) and resource (events of a legislative body), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'buscar_eventos' or 'eventos_deputado', which appear to be related event-finding tools.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'buscar_eventos' or 'eventos_deputado'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what distinguishes it from similar tools in the sibling list.

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