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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets details' but doesn't describe what details are returned, whether it's a read-only operation, error handling, or any constraints like 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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying what is being detailed.

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 insufficient for a tool that retrieves details. It doesn't explain what kind of details are returned (e.g., event metadata, participants, dates), the response format, or potential errors. For a detail-retrieval tool with no structured output information, this leaves the agent with significant uncertainty about the tool's behavior and results.

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 single parameter 'id' documented as 'ID do evento' (event ID). The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to find the ID. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation 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 clearly states the action ('Obtém detalhes' - Gets details) and resource ('de um evento específico da Câmara' - of a specific Chamber event), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'buscar_eventos' (which likely lists events) or 'eventos_deputado' (events by deputy), though the specificity of 'detalhar' (detail) versus 'buscar' (search) provides some implicit distinction.

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 sibling tools like 'buscar_eventos' for listing events or 'eventos_deputado' for events related to a deputy, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for use. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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