MCP Câmara BR

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the parallel call behavior ('em uma única chamada paralela') which is valuable context. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid IDs. For a tool that aggregates multiple data types, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence defines the tool's comprehensive scope and parallel execution. The second provides clear usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core functionality.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by specifying the comprehensive data types returned and when to use it. However, it could better address the complexity of aggregating multiple data types by mentioning potential performance implications or completeness guarantees. The guidance on when to use versus specialized siblings is particularly valuable.

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% with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'ID do deputado'. The description doesn't add parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, but with only one parameter and complete schema coverage, the baseline is high. The description's context about what data the tool returns helps understand what the ID parameter will retrieve.

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 a specific verb ('Obtém' - gets) and resource ('dados de um deputado'), listing comprehensive data types (detalhes, despesas recentes, discursos, etc.). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing it provides 'TODOS os dados' in 'uma única chamada paralela', contrasting with more specialized tools like detalhar_deputado, despesas_deputado, or discursos_deputado.

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 usage guidance: 'Use isso preferencialmente para responder perguntas gerais sobre um parlamentar.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool (for general questions about a parliamentarian) versus when to use more specialized sibling tools for specific aspects like expenses, speeches, or events.

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