senado-br-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a list of matching senators, which is helpful. However, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like: whether this is a read-only operation, how results are formatted, whether it performs partial/fuzzy matching, what happens with no matches, or any rate limits/authentication requirements. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve a purpose: the first states the core functionality, the second provides context about when to use it and what it returns. There's no wasted language, and the information is front-loaded. It could potentially be structured slightly better by explicitly mentioning the return format earlier, but overall it's 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 (search function with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a basic but incomplete picture. It covers the purpose and return type (list), but lacks details about the search behavior (exact/partial/fuzzy matching), result format, error conditions, or how this differs from sibling tools. The absence of annotations and output schema means the description should do more to compensate, which it doesn't fully achieve.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (the 'nome' parameter has a clear description in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema - it mentions searching by name but doesn't provide additional details about format, matching behavior, or examples. The description's value is minimal given the comprehensive schema documentation.

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: 'Busca senadores por nome' (search senators by name). It specifies the verb 'busca' (search) and resource 'senadores' (senators), and adds context about when it's useful ('útil quando não se tem o código' - useful when you don't have the code). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'senado_obter_senador' or 'senado_listar_senadores' beyond the name-based search aspect.

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 implied usage guidance by stating when it's useful ('útil quando não se tem o código'), suggesting this tool should be used when you don't have a senator code/ID. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'senado_obter_senador' (which likely requires a code) or 'senado_listar_senadores' (which likely lists all senators). No explicit exclusions or detailed comparison with sibling tools is provided.

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