camara_proposicoes

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 does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe the response format, pagination, or any potential side effects. While 'busca' implies a read, it is not stated, and given the absence of annotations, this is a gap.

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 efficient and well-structured. The main purpose is stated in a single sentence, followed by a clearly separated 'Args' section. Every sentence adds value, and examples are embedded without verbosity. It is front-loaded with the core function.

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?

The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, the description lacks usage guidance (when to use vs alternatives) and behavioral notes (read-only, error handling). It also does not address the fact that all parameters are optional and whether any combination is required. These omissions make it incomplete for a tool with multiple siblings and free-form search.

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 0%, but the description compensates thoroughly. Each parameter (ano, palavras_chave, sigla_tipo) is explained with a definition and concrete examples ('ex.: 2025', 'ex.: "saude mental"', 'ex.: "PL", "PEC", "MPV"'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and is exactly what a low-coverage schema needs.

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 verb 'Busca' (searches) and the resource 'proposições legislativas na Câmara', listing examples like projetos de lei and emendas. It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as camara_votacoes_proposicao. The resource is clear enough that an agent can infer its purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description only explains what it does, not when to invoke it. For instance, it does not mention that camara_votacoes_proposicao would be more appropriate for voting data. This is a significant gap for a search tool with multiple sibling tools.

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