resumo_despesas_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 effectively describes what the tool returns (aggregated totals, top 10 expenses, statistics) and its optimization for agents with context limitations. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but for a read-only summary tool, the behavioral description is quite comprehensive.

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 efficiently structured with zero wasted sentences. It starts with the core purpose, then lists the specific return format, and concludes with clear usage guidelines. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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 summary tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides strong contextual completeness. It explains what data is returned, when to use it versus alternatives, and the optimization rationale. The main gap is the lack of output format details, but given this is a summary tool with clear behavioral description, it's mostly complete.

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, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it returns an OPTIMIZED SUMMARY of a deputy's expenses, specifically aggregating totals by expense type, showing top 10 largest individual expenses, and providing statistics. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'despesas_deputado' by emphasizing it's for a high-level overview rather than detailed documents.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It states: 'Use this tool preferably instead of 'despesas_deputado' when you need an overview' and 'Use 'despesas_deputado' only if you need to see ALL detailed documents.' This clearly defines the context and alternative tool for different needs.

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