ultimas_votacoes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a listing operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, what 'últimas' means (e.g., time range or count), or the format of returned data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'últimas' entails (e.g., most recent by date, limited count), the return format, or how it differs from similar sibling tools. For a listing tool in a complex domain with many alternatives, more context is needed.

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 the single parameter 'ordem' with its enum values. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as default behavior or how ordering affects the 'últimas' aspect. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('Lista' - lists) and resource ('últimas votações realizadas na Câmara dos Deputados' - latest votes in the Chamber of Deputies). It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'buscar_votacoes' or 'votacoes_evento' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 like 'buscar_votacoes' or 'votacoes_evento'. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts where this tool is preferred over others.

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