senado-br-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves details (a read operation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with no annotation coverage, 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, efficient sentence in Portuguese that front-loads the core purpose ('Obtém detalhes de uma consulta pública específica') and adds useful detail ('incluindo votos, autor e comentários'). There's no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, which are important for an agent to use it correctly. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'ID da consulta pública'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, as it only implies an ID is needed without specifying format or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 detalhes de uma consulta pública específica' (gets details of a specific public consultation). It specifies the verb 'obtém' (gets) and resource 'consulta pública' (public consultation), and lists included details like votes, author, and comments. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'senado_ecidadania_listar_consultas' (which likely lists consultations rather than getting details of a specific one).

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_consultas' for listing consultations or 'senado_ecidadania_consultas_consensuais'/'senado_ecidadania_consultas_polarizadas' for filtered lists. There's no context about prerequisites, such as needing a consultation ID from another tool first.

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