ranking_partidos_tamanho

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 returns a ranking but does not disclose key behavioral traits such as data freshness, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a read-only tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first and example questions added for clarity. Every sentence earns its place by enhancing understanding without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like data sources, limitations, or return format. Without annotations or an output schema, more context would be beneficial for effective agent use.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining why 'confirmar' is required or typical use cases for 'idLegislatura' and 'limite'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with a specific verb ('Retorna') and resource ('ranking dos maiores partidos na Câmara por número de deputados'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'buscar_partidos' (which likely lists all parties) and 'detalhar_partido' (which provides details for a specific party). It also includes example questions that illustrate its use case.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Ideal para perguntas como...'), listing specific question types it addresses. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for related queries, such as 'buscar_partidos' for unfiltered party lists.

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