senado-br-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions filtering options but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be needed, how results are paginated, or what the output format looks like. For a list tool with 4 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool 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 efficiently structured in a single sentence that communicates the core functionality and filtering options. It's appropriately sized for a list tool, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by explicitly stating it's for listing senators before mentioning filtering details.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the return values look like (e.g., list structure, fields included), doesn't mention pagination or result limits, and provides no context about data freshness or source. With no annotations to supplement, this leaves the agent with incomplete understanding of tool behavior.

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%, providing clear documentation for all 4 parameters. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the filtering capabilities ('Pode filtrar por UF e partido') and the legislatura/emExercicio options, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions.

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 ('senadores'), specifying it can list senators in office or from a specific legislature. It distinguishes from siblings like 'senado_buscar_senador_por_nome' by focusing on listing rather than searching, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'senado_listar_comissoes'.

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 mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't compare to similar tools like 'senado_buscar_senador_por_nome' for name-based searches or 'senado_obter_senador' for individual senator details, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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