Identify data limitations in Brazilian dental-health records, explaining why CNES undercounts dental offices, with evidence and build report.
As armadilhas do CFO (e por que o CNES não serve para contar consultórios odontológicos), com evidência, mais o relatório do build.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'com evidência' and 'relatório do build', which hint at an output, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what the response looks like, any side effects, authentication, or rate limits. The behavior is largely undisclosed.
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, compact sentence with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the core topic. However, its brevity comes at the expense of operational detail, so it is concise but not as structured as it could be.
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 no output schema, no annotations, and a single undocumented parameter, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what the tool returns (the 'relatório do build' is mentioned but not described), how the optional id affects the result, or how this relates to sibling tools. The description leaves too many unknowns for an agent to call the tool correctly.
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 defines an optional 'id' with no description (0% coverage). The tool description never mentions this parameter or any other, so an agent cannot infer the meaning or expected value of 'id'. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 states a topic ('armadilhas do CFO' and why CNES is not suitable) but does not include an explicit verb or operation. It is more of a label than a functional description, so an agent can infer it provides caveats but not exactly what action it performs. It is not a tautology, but it is vague.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of sibling tools. The phrase about CNES not serving to count dental offices implicitly suggests this tool provides caveats before using health data, but it does not direct the agent to alternatives or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.