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 but provides minimal information. It indicates this is a search operation but doesn't describe what the search returns (list format, fields included), whether results are paginated (though parameters suggest they are), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist, but it fails to provide essential behavioral context for a search tool with 8 parameters.

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 the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains zero redundant or verbose elements. The Portuguese phrasing is direct and clear, making every word earn its place in the description.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (format, fields), how results are structured, whether there are limitations on date ranges or other filters, or how to interpret empty results. The combination of rich parameter schema but minimal behavioral description creates significant gaps for an agent trying 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, enums, and constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how parameters interact, which combinations are most useful, or provide examples of typical queries. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation entirely through the schema.

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 verb ('busca' - searches) and resource ('partidos políticos representados na Câmara dos Deputados' - political parties represented in the Chamber of Deputies). It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'detalhar_partido' (detail party) by indicating this is a search/filtering operation rather than retrieving details of a specific party. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search tools like 'buscar_deputados' or 'buscar_blocos' beyond the resource type.

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 this search tool should be used instead of 'detalhar_partido' for specific party details, or how it relates to 'buscar_blocos' or 'buscar_deputados' for finding related political entities. There's no indication of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases for this search functionality.

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