br_search_proposicoes

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds context about the scope (federal bills) and the required filters. No behavioral traits beyond annotations are needed, and the description aligns with annotations.

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 concise sentence that conveys the essential action and constraints. No wasted words; it is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 the low complexity, small number of parameters, and presence of output schema and annotations, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does and what inputs are required. No gaps are apparent.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions. The description reinforces the purpose of sigla_tipo and ano. For itens, the default and API cap are noted, adding useful detail beyond the schema. No enums or further nuance needed.

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 uses a specific verb (List) and identifies the resource (Brazilian federal bills) with clear filters (type and year). It distinguishes from sibling tools that retrieve specific cases (br_get_case_*) or norms (br_get_norma*), making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 when to use it (when you need a list filtered by type and year) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Sibling tools are listed but not contrasted, so the agent must infer from names.

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