senado-br-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states the tool lists votes and shows how the senator voted, it doesn't describe key behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not explicit), potential rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or the format/structure of the returned data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core functionality ('Lista votações de um senador específico') and adds clarifying detail ('mostrando como o senador votou em cada matéria'). There is zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, data format), usage context compared to siblings, and output expectations. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema, leaving gaps in understanding how to effectively use the tool.

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%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'codigoSenador' as 'Código único do senador', 'ano' as 'Ano das votações'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact (e.g., if 'dataInicio' and 'dataFim' override 'ano') or providing examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Lista votações de um senador específico, mostrando como o senador votou em cada matéria' (Lists votes of a specific senator, showing how the senator voted on each matter). It specifies the verb ('lista'), resource ('votações'), and scope ('de um senador específico'), making it clear what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'senado_listar_votacoes' or 'senado_votos_materia', which might have overlapping functionality.

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_listar_votacoes' (which might list all votes) or 'senado_votos_materia' (which might focus on votes for a specific matter), nor does it specify prerequisites or constraints beyond the required 'codigoSenador' parameter. This lack of comparative context leaves the agent guessing about the best tool for a given scenario.

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