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. While it states what the tool does (gets legislative history in chronological order), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output takes (list of events? structured data?), whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a legislative history tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose ('Obtém histórico de tramitação de uma matéria') followed by a clarifying detail about chronological ordering. Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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 complexity of legislative history data and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'tramitação' (legislative process) entails in this context, what types of movements are included, what the output format looks like, or whether there are any limitations (e.g., date ranges, completeness). For a tool that presumably returns complex historical data, this minimal description leaves too much unspecified.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (the single parameter 'codigoMateria' has a clear description in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The tool description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain where to find the 'codigoMateria', provide examples, or clarify the parameter's role in the context of getting legislative history.

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 histórico de tramitação de uma matéria' (Gets the legislative history of a matter) with specific details about showing all movements in chronological order. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'senado_obter_materia' (which likely gets basic matter info) by focusing specifically on the legislative process history. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'senado_textos_materia' (which gets matter texts) or 'senado_votos_materia' (which gets matter votes), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 when to choose this over 'senado_obter_materia' (which might include some history), 'senado_textos_materia' (which gets related documents), or 'senado_votos_materia' (which gets voting history). There's also no mention of prerequisites or constraints beyond the required parameter.

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