MCP Câmara BR

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. It mentions that the tool searches by various criteria and provides usage tips, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: it doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'busca'), doesn't mention pagination behavior (despite having 'pagina' and 'itens' parameters), doesn't describe the return format or structure, and doesn't mention rate limits or authentication requirements. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic search function.

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 and well-structured: one sentence stating the purpose followed by a practical usage tip. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary information. The front-loaded purpose statement makes the tool's function immediately clear, and the tip provides actionable guidance without verbosity.

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 tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. While concise, it doesn't address important contextual aspects: it doesn't describe the return format (critical for a search tool with no output schema), doesn't explain pagination behavior despite having pagination parameters, doesn't mention error conditions or limitations, and doesn't provide guidance on parameter combinations beyond the basic examples. For a tool with this many parameters and no structured output documentation, the description should do more to help the agent understand what to expect.

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 adds some parameter semantics by mentioning 'nome', 'uf', and 'partido' in the usage tip, but with 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already provides comprehensive documentation for all 11 parameters including descriptions, examples, enums, defaults, and constraints. The description's tip about combining 'uf' + 'partido' is helpful but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what's already in the well-documented schema. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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: 'Busca deputados por diversos critérios' (Searches deputies by various criteria). It specifies the verb ('busca') and resource ('deputados'), making the function immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'detalhar_deputado' or 'obter_perfil_completo_deputado', which likely provide detailed information about specific deputies rather than searching/filtering multiple deputies.

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 clear usage guidance with the 'DICA' (TIP) section: 'Use "nome" para busca por nome, ou combine "uf" + "partido" para filtrar por região e partido.' This gives practical examples of when to use specific parameter combinations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., vs. sibling tools for detailed single-deputy information) or mention alternatives for different search scenarios.

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