MCP Câmara BR

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'obtains details' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, what kind of details are returned (e.g., members, dates, statistics), error handling, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Obtém detalhes'), making it easy to scan and understand quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to explaining the tool's function.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it doesn't fully compensate by explaining return values or behavioral context. It meets basic needs but lacks depth for a complete understanding.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter documented as 'ID do bloco (número ou string)'. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond this, such as examples of valid IDs or where to obtain them. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately covers parameter meaning.

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 'Obtém detalhes de um bloco parlamentar específico' clearly states the action (obtain details) and resource (specific parliamentary block). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'buscar_blocos' (which likely searches or lists blocks) by specifying it's for detailed information about a specific block. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other 'detalhar_' tools (e.g., 'detalhar_deputado'), though the resource type makes it distinct.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a block ID from 'buscar_blocos'), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'detalhar_partido' or 'buscar_blocos'. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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