resumo_tramitacao_proposicao

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it explains the tool optimizes for context-limited agents, filters out repetitive entries, limits key events to maximum 20, and focuses on important milestones. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but provides substantial behavioral context for a read-only summary tool.

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: first sentence states the core purpose, followed by bullet points detailing what's included, then explicit usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 does well: it explains what the tool returns (statistics, key events, committees, timeline), when to use it vs alternatives, and its optimization for context-limited agents. It doesn't describe the exact output format or error handling, but provides substantial 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (id, dataInicio, dataFim) with their purposes and formats. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 returns an 'optimized summary of the legislative history of a proposition' and specifies what it includes: general statistics, key events (max 20), committees with status/timing, and a summarized timeline. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'tramitacoes_proposicao' by emphasizing it's for overview vs. detailed movements.

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: 'Use this tool preferably instead of 'tramitacoes_proposicao' when you need an overview' and 'Use 'tramitacoes_proposicao' only if you need to see ALL detailed dispatches and movements of a specific period.' This clearly defines when to use this tool versus its alternative.

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