Cadastro Ambiental Rural: Demonstrativo (PDF), consulta em fonte oficial. Hospedado pela plataforma, sem credenciais da plataforma, pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago. Consulta informação de fontes e órgãos oficiais brasileiros (a mesma disponível ao cidadão), não é dado sigiloso. O cliente é o controlador dos dados e responde pela finalidade legítima (LGPD).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| car | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it queries official sources, the data is public ('não é dado sigiloso'), and there is a cost per query. It also clarifies the customer's legal role, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction.
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 run-on sentence but remains concise and information-dense. It covers purpose, payment, data source, and legal context in under 300 characters. While not segmented for skimming, it is efficient and free of fluff.
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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides adequate context about the data source, payment, and LGPD compliance. However, the lack of parameter explanation and lack of mention about error handling or response format (though PDF is implied) leaves it slightly incomplete for an agent to use it with full confidence.
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 has one parameter 'car' with 0% description coverage, and the description does not elaborate on what format or value to provide for this parameter. Although 'car' likely stands for Cadastro Ambiental Rural (inferred from the tool name), the description fails to explicitly explain that the parameter expects the registry code or how to format it. This is a significant gap for a mandatory parameter.
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 'Cadastro Ambiental Rural: Demonstrativo (PDF), consulta em fonte oficial' which specifies the exact resource (CAR demonstrativo) and action (consulta). It differentiates this tool from siblings by mentioning PDF output and official source. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.
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 useful context about payment ('pague por consulta com crédito pré-pago') and legal responsibility (LGPD), but it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.