camara_detalhes_deputado

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly conveys a read/fetch operation and what fields it returns. It does not disclose error behavior for invalid or nonexistent IDs, which is the main gap, but for a straightforward ID-based lookup the description is transparent about its purpose.

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?

Two short sentences that front-load the purpose, followed by a minimal parameter note. There is zero waste, and the workflow pointer to camara_deputados earns its place.

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 single-required-parameter lookup with an output schema present (which covers return format), the description covers purpose, returned fields, parameter meaning, and parameter source. The only missing piece is error handling for invalid IDs, which is a minor gap for a simple detail-fetch tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the bare schema only labels the field 'Id Deputado'. The description compensates by explaining that id_deputado is the numeric deputy ID and, importantly, that it is obtained via camara_deputados, adding semantic value beyond 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Detalhes de um deputado federal pelo ID') and lists the returned fields (nome civil, partido, UF, gabinete). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list tool camara_deputados by noting the ID is obtained from that tool, so an agent can tell lookup-details apart from list-deputies.

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 implies a clear two-step workflow: first call camara_deputados to obtain the ID, then call this tool for details. This gives context on when to use it, though it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. For a simple lookup this is adequate, but exclusions are not spelled out.

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