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 mentions what the tool returns (texts with download URLs) but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if the matter code is invalid, rate limits, authentication requirements, or the format/structure of returned data. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information (gets texts with download URLs). Every word earns its place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. For a tool that presumably returns structured data about legislative texts with URLs, the description should provide more context about what 'textos disponíveis' includes, how results are structured, and what the URLs represent. The lack of output schema means the description should compensate with more detail about return values.

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% with the single parameter 'codigoMateria' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate - the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 action ('Obtém' - gets/obtains) and resource ('textos disponíveis de uma matéria'), specifying the types of texts (inicial, substitutivo, final) and that it provides URLs for download. It distinguishes from siblings like 'senado_obter_materia' by focusing specifically on text documents rather than general matter information.

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. While the description implies it's for obtaining text documents of legislative matters, it doesn't specify when to choose this over 'senado_obter_materia' or other sibling tools that might provide related information. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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