camara_deputados

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists deputies with filters; it does not mention pagination, ordering, data limits, or how filters are combined (e.g., AND). It also does not describe the response structure beyond what an output schema would provide, but since the output schema exists, that is partially covered.

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 a brief purpose sentence followed by a compact parameter list. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundant content. The format is easy to scan and understand.

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 tool with four optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the purpose and parameter semantics well. It mentions the default for legislatura. However, it does not specify how filters interact (e.g., whether they are combinable) or whether results are complete without pagination. Given the output schema exists, this is nearly complete but misses minor behavioral details.

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 description explicitly explains each parameter with examples and delimiters (e.g., 'uf: Sigla da unidade federativa, ex.: "SP", "MG"'). This adds significant value beyond the input schema, which only provides types and defaults. It also clarifies that 'legislatura' defaults to the current one, which is not evident from the schema.

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 resource (federal deputies of the Câmara) and the verb 'Lista' (list). It also indicates optional filters. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like camara_detalhes_deputado, which likely fetches details for a single deputy, so an agent could be unsure whether to use this for listing or details.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions optional filters but does not explain under what circumstances one would prefer this tool over siblings such as camara_proposicoes or camara_detalhes_deputado. There are no explicit exclusions or prerequisites.

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