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. It does well by detailing the return structure (lista, resumo, alinhamento, análise por temas) and specifying the analysis scope. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like data availability, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions that would be important for a tool with comprehensive analysis.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, provides usage examples, details the return structure, and ends with a prerequisite note. While efficient, the question list format could be slightly more concise, and the analysis details might be better summarized rather than listed exhaustively.

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 (comprehensive voting analysis) and lack of output schema, the description does a good job explaining what the tool returns. It details the multi-faceted output structure including lists, summaries, alignments, and thematic analysis. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral context about limitations or data freshness.

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 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it only reinforces that 'idDeputado' is required and should come from 'buscar_deputados'. No additional parameter semantics are provided beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('retorna o histórico de votos', 'com análise completa') and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on a deputy's voting history with comprehensive analysis. It explicitly mentions the resource (deputado específico) and scope (histórico de votos), making it distinct from tools like 'ultimas_votacoes' or 'votos_votacao'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It lists specific question types the tool answers, names a prerequisite tool ('use buscar_deputados primeiro'), and implicitly distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on deputy-specific voting analysis rather than general voting data or other deputy attributes.

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