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. While 'Lista' (Lists) implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this returns all votes or is paginated, what format the results take, whether there are rate limits, or any authentication requirements. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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, clear sentence that states the tool's core function without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and gets straight to the point with zero wasted verbiage.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. While it states what the tool does, it doesn't explain what the output looks like, how results are structured, whether there are limitations on the data returned, or any error conditions. The agent would need to guess about the return format and behavioral characteristics.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions (ID da proposição, Ordem de listagem, Campo para ordenação). This meets the baseline expectation when schema documentation is complete.

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 as 'Lista as votações relacionadas a uma proposição' (Lists votes related to a proposition), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'buscar_votacoes' (search votes) and 'votacoes_evento' (votes by event) by focusing specifically on proposition-related votes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'detalhar_votacao' (detail vote), which might be a more specific lookup tool.

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 doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate versus 'buscar_votacoes' (which might search votes more broadly) or 'detalhar_votacao' (which might provide detailed information about a specific vote). There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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