MCP Câmara BR

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a search operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention pagination behavior (despite pagination parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the return format looks like. The description is minimal and lacks important 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 states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool and is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

For a search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'frente parlamentar', how results are returned, what fields are included, or how pagination works. With no annotations and incomplete behavioral context, users lack important information to use this tool 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 adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for idLegislatura, pagina, and itens). The baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't provide additional context about how these parameters affect the search.

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 ('Busca' - searches) and resource ('frentes parlamentares da Câmara dos Deputados' - parliamentary fronts of the Chamber of Deputies), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'detalhar_frente' or 'frentes_deputado', but it's not vague or tautological.

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 like 'detalhar_frente' (which likely provides details on a specific front) or 'frentes_deputado' (which likely lists fronts for a specific deputy). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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