saude_dentistas_municipio

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 does add meaningful behavior: filtering by active CFO registration, grouping by the municipality of the address, and summing across all CROs. It does not mention output format, pagination, or edge cases such as invalid or conflicting inputs.

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 dense sentence with no filler. The core resource and filtering logic are front-loaded, and the UF alternative is stated efficiently at the end.

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 an unannotated tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the definition is workable but incomplete. It does not describe the response contents, how to choose between parameters, or what happens when no parameter is provided.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about address-based municipality filtering and CRO summation, but it does not substantially extend the meaning of the two parameters beyond what the schema already documents.

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 identifies the resource (dentists with active CFO registration) and the scope (by municipality address or full UF), including the accepted code formats. It lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns' and does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the purpose is otherwise specific and unambiguous.

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 conveys two usage modes: querying by municipality codes or by an entire UF. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over saude_uf or when saude_data_caveats should be consulted, nor does it explain behavior when both parameters are supplied or when neither is supplied.

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