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 effectively communicates this is a read-only lookup tool for reference data (status codes/IDs), implies no destructive operations, and suggests it returns a list of status options. However, it doesn't explicitly mention whether the list is complete, static, or paginated, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: purpose statement, usage guidance with specific alternative tool reference, and concrete examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded with the most critical information first.

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 zero-parameter lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about what the tool returns (status codes/IDs for filtering) and how to use the results. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit information about the return format (e.g., whether it's a simple list or structured objects), but the examples strongly imply usable identifiers.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline would be 4 even without parameter information in the description. The description correctly indicates no parameters are needed ('lista as situações' implies a simple list operation), which aligns perfectly with the empty input schema.

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: 'Lista as situações possíveis de proposições legislativas' (lists possible legislative proposition statuses). It specifies the resource (proposition statuses) and verb (list), and distinguishes from siblings like 'buscar_proposicoes' (search propositions) by focusing on metadata rather than actual propositions.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use esta tool para obter o ID ou sigla de uma situação quando precisar filtrar proposições por status em buscar_proposicoes.' It provides a clear alternative (buscar_proposicoes) and gives concrete examples of use cases (finding propositions in progress, listing archived bills, searching approved constitutional amendments).

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