orgaos_deputado

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists organs for a deputy, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination handling (suggested by 'pagina' and 'itens' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with optional date parameters. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context beyond the basic function.

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: 'Lista os órgãos dos quais um deputado é membro'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple list operation. Every part of the sentence earns its place by directly stating the tool's function.

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 (a list tool with 5 parameters, including optional dates and pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like the format of returned data (e.g., list of organ names with details), how pagination works, or the effect of date filters. For a tool with multiple parameters and no structured output information, the description should provide more guidance to be fully helpful.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with all parameters clearly documented in Portuguese (e.g., 'ID do deputado', 'Data de início (YYYY-MM-DD)'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain how parameters like 'dataInicio' and 'dataFim' filter results or the default behavior for pagination. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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: 'Lista os órgãos dos quais um deputado é membro' (Lists the organs/organizations of which a deputy is a member). It specifies the verb ('lista' - lists) and resource ('órgãos dos quais um deputado é membro'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'membros_orgao' (which might show members of an organ) or 'buscar_orgaos' (which might search for organs generally), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'membros_orgao' (which could be for listing members of a specific organ) or 'orgaos_evento' (which might list organs related to an event), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the name and description alone, with no explicit context provided.

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