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 the tool exports data but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it modifies data, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what the output looks like. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 function without fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple export tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key usage details.

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 complexity (data transformation with 4 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the exported data looks like, how formats differ, or behavioral constraints, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the 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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying that 'tool' refers to source tools and 'params' are data to export, which is already covered. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Exporta dados') and the resource ('de outras ferramentas'), specifying the transformation to different formats (JSON, CSV, Markdown). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on data export rather than analysis or retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives for comparison.

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 mentions exporting data from other tools but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., needing data from another tool first), exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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