resumo_discursos_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 key behavioral traits: it returns optimized summaries instead of full texts (addressing data size constraints), specifies the structured output components (statistics, keywords, summarized speeches, theme grouping), and mentions automatic theme detection. It doesn't cover potential limitations like rate limits or error conditions, but provides substantial 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 efficiently structured: it opens with the core purpose, immediately lists the output components in bullet points for clarity, and concludes with explicit usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value—no redundant or vague statements. The bullet points make the output format easily scannable.

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 complexity (summarization with multiple output components) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description does an excellent job of explaining what the tool returns. It details the four output components clearly. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit error handling or performance characteristics, but for a read-only summary tool, the description provides sufficient context for effective 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The tool description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Retorna um RESUMO OTIMIZADO dos discursos de um deputado' (returns an optimized summary of a deputy's speeches). It specifies the output format (statistics, keywords, top 10 summarized speeches, theme grouping) and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'discursos_deputado' by contrasting summary vs. full text retrieval.

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 usage guidelines: 'Use esta ferramenta preferencialmente ao invés de 'discursos_deputado' quando precisar de visão geral. Use 'discursos_deputado' apenas se precisar ler textos completos de discursos específicos.' It clearly states when to use this tool (for overview/context-limited agents) versus the alternative (for full text of specific speeches), including the rationale (avoiding 500KB+ data).

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