camara_votacoes_proposicao

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Lista' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose any additional behaviors such as pagination, rate limits, or authorization requirements. For a simple listing tool this is acceptable, but it lacks depth.

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 concise, leading with the purpose in the first sentence and then detailing the argument. The 'Args:' section is slightly redundant with the schema but adds value by explaining the parameter's origin. No wasted words.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description provides the core information: what it does and how to get the required ID. The output schema covers return values, so that omission is not an issue. Some minor details like result ordering or pagination are absent but not critical.

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 input schema has no description for the parameter, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that id_proposicao is an ID numérico da proposição and indicates where to obtain it (camara_proposicoes). This fully clarifies the single parameter's meaning and source.

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 'Lista as votações realizadas para uma proposição específica da Câmara' with a specific verb (Lista) and resource (votações for a proposição). It differentiates from siblings like camara_proposicoes by focusing on votes for a specific proposition.

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 mentions that id_proposicao is 'obtido via camara_proposicoes', which implicitly tells the agent to first fetch propositions from that sibling tool to get the ID. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the source reference provides clear context for usage.

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