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. It mentions the tool returns queries with balanced voting (~50/50), but lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'consultas' specifically refers to in the context of the e-cidadania system. This leaves gaps for an AI agent to understand operational constraints.

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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and utility. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It clarifies the purpose and usage context but lacks details on behavioral transparency and output format, which are important for an AI agent to invoke it correctly without annotations or output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'margemPolarizacao' relates to the ~50/50 concept. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 with a specific verb ('Retorna' - returns) and resource ('consultas com votação equilibrada' - queries with balanced voting), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on polarized topics, unlike tools like 'senado_ecidadania_consultas_consensuais' or general listing tools.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('útil para identificar temas polarizados na sociedade' - useful for identifying polarized topics in society), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the siblings, such as 'senado_ecidadania_consultas_consensuais' for non-polarized queries.

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