Cadastro Ambiental Rural: Imóvel, 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 indicate read-only, but the description adds critical behavioral details: payment requirement, absence of platform credentials, data non-confidentiality, and LGPD data control responsibilities. These go beyond the annotations and are valuable for agent decision-making.
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 somewhat verbose with redundant statements (e.g., 'consulta em fonte oficial' repeated) and includes legal jargon. It is front-loaded with the main purpose but could be tightened without losing important compliance information.
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?
With a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, and data classification, but lacks explicit parameter semantics and any indication of response format. It is minimally sufficient for basic use but not comprehensive.
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 0%, yet the description does not explicitly explain the 'car' parameter beyond implying it refers to a property. No format, example, or validation guidance is provided, leaving the agent to guess the meaning of the 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 the tool queries the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) for property information from official Brazilian sources. It explicitly mentions 'consulta em fonte oficial' and differentiates from sibling platform tools which are admin-oriented.
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?
It provides context that this is a paid query using prepaid credit and requires no platform credentials, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. Since siblings are unrelated (authenticate, connect, etc.), this is acceptable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.