MCP Câmara BR

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'obtains details' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'detalhes' entails (e.g., returns structured data or raw text). 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 incomplete. It doesn't explain what details are returned, potential errors, or usage context. For a tool that likely returns structured party data, more information is needed to guide the agent effectively, especially without annotations to cover behavioral aspects.

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 parameter 'id' documented as 'ID do partido'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain format, valid ranges, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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 partido político específico' clearly states the action (obtains details) and resource (specific political party). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'buscar_partidos' (which likely searches/list parties) by specifying retrieval of details for a specific party. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'detalhar_bloco' or 'detalhar_deputado' which follow a similar pattern for other entities.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a party ID), contrast with 'buscar_partidos' for listing parties, or specify use cases like fetching metadata for analysis. The description alone implies usage only when you have a specific party ID, but this is not explicitly stated.

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