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. While it indicates this is a read operation ('retorna'), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether results are sorted by popularity, what data fields are returned, if there's pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and gets straight to the point without preamble.

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 (filtered retrieval with popularity metrics), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does at a high level but lacks details about return format, sorting behavior, and operational constraints. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context about the tool's behavior remains insufficient.

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 both parameters ('limite' and 'apenasAgendados') with their types, constraints, and descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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: 'Retorna eventos com mais comentários e perguntas dos cidadãos' (Returns events with the most comments and questions from citizens). It specifies the verb ('retorna') and resource ('eventos'), and distinguishes itself by focusing on popularity metrics (comments/questions) rather than just listing events. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'senado_ecidadania_listar_eventos' which might list all events without popularity filtering.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'senado_ecidadania_listar_eventos' (which might list all events) or 'senado_ecidadania_consultas_consensuais/polarizadas' (which focus on consultations rather than events). There's no context about prerequisites, timing, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over others.

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