senado-br-mcp

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. The description states it's a read operation ('obtém' - gets), which implies non-destructive behavior, but it doesn't mention any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another describing filtering capabilities. It's front-loaded with the main function and wastes no words. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from optional features, but it's still efficient.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and filtering, but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., what the output looks like, error cases) that would be crucial for an agent to use it effectively without annotations. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 100%, with both parameters ('data' and 'siglaComissao') well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning filtering by date and committee, which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional semantic context (e.g., date format details beyond the pattern, committee code examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Obtém agenda de reuniões das comissões do Senado' (Gets meeting agendas for Senate committees). It specifies the verb 'obtém' (gets) and the resource 'agenda de reuniões das comissões do Senado' (meeting agendas for Senate committees). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'senado_reunioes_comissao' (which might have overlapping functionality), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides some usage context by mentioning filtering options ('Pode filtrar por data e comissão específica' - Can filter by date and specific committee), which implies when to use this tool for filtered queries. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'senado_reunioes_comissao' or provide clear exclusions, so it's only implied guidance.

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