profissoes_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 states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention any constraints like rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format might be (e.g., list of strings, structured data). This leaves gaps for an AI agent to understand how to handle the tool effectively.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or fluff. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core functionality, making it easy to parse.

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 simple nature of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format, error handling, or behavioral traits, which could be important for an AI agent to use it correctly in context.

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 the single parameter 'id' clearly documented as 'ID do deputado'. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond this, such as format examples or valid ranges, but the schema provides adequate information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('profissões registradas de um deputado'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ocupacoes_deputado' or 'obter_perfil_completo_deputado', which might have overlapping functionality, 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, such as 'ocupacoes_deputado' or 'obter_perfil_completo_deputado', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It's a basic statement of purpose without usage context.

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