MCP Câmara BR

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 this is a listing operation, which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what format the list returns. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, clear sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list format, fields included), any limitations, or behavioral context. For a tool that presumably returns data, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 100% (the 'id' parameter is fully described in the schema), so the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to since the schema already documents the single required parameter adequately.

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 'Lista os autores de uma proposição legislativa' clearly states the action (list) and target resource (authors of a legislative proposition). It's specific enough to understand the tool's function, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'detalhar_proposicao' or 'ranking_proposicoes_autor' which might have overlapping purposes.

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. With siblings like 'detalhar_proposicao' (detail proposition) and 'ranking_proposicoes_autor' (ranking proposition authors), there's no indication of when this specific listing tool is preferred or what distinguishes it from related tools.

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