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 mentions 'Lista consultas públicas' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the schema, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, fields). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with three parameters and no output schema.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It uses clear language and avoids redundancy, making it appropriately concise for a listing tool.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., authentication, rate limits), output format, and differentiation from sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for optimal use.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (schema description coverage is 100%). It doesn't explain the meaning of 'status' values like 'aberta' or 'encerrada' in context, or clarify the purpose of 'limite' and 'pagina' for result handling. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema documents parameters adequately.

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 verb ('Lista') and resource ('consultas públicas do e-Cidadania'), specifying they involve citizen voting on legislative matters. It distinguishes from general listing tools but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'senado_ecidadania_consultas_consensuais' or 'senado_ecidadania_consultas_polarizadas' that might list similar consultations with different filters.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'senado_ecidadania_consultas_consensuais' or 'senado_ecidadania_consultas_polarizadas' is provided. The description implies usage for listing public consultations with citizen voting, but lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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