saude_uf

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists what categories are included, but does not mention any behavioral traits such as whether the list is aggregated, whether it includes all CFO categories, whether there are any limitations on data availability, or whether it requires any authentication. It also doesn't state what the output format is. For a tool that returns categorical data, this is a significant gap.

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 one sentence, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It lists the categories efficiently, but the categories are enumerated in a long list, which is acceptable. No unnecessary words.

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 there is no output schema, the description should explain what the return value looks like, but it doesn't. As a simple tool with one parameter, the description explains what data is included but not the structure or any caveats. Sibling tools like saude_data_caveats might hold necessary context, but an agent would benefit from knowing that this tool may have limitations or how the data is organized. It is incomplete for an agent to know exactly what to expect.

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 'uf' with 100% coverage, so the schema already describes it as 'Sigla da UF. Vazio = todas.' The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it is not necessary because the schema is sufficient. However, the description could have elaborated on the expected format (e.g., 'SP', 'RJ') or given examples, but since the schema is clear, this is adequately covered.

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 what the tool does: lists all CFO categories per UF, enumerating the categories (dentists, clinics, labs, technicians, companies). It is specific about the resource and scope, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings beyond the UF focus. The verb 'Todas as categorias do CFO por UF' is specific, but the tool name itself suggests UF-level data, so the description adds clarity on the categories included.

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 implies usage: this is for querying CFO categories by UF. It does not state when to use this versus the sibling tools like saude_dentistas_municipio (which is at municipal level) or saude_data_caveats (which likely provides caveats). The context is clear, but there is no explicit mention of alternatives or conditions. Since the sibling names suggest different granularity, a note about when to use UF-level vs municipal would be helpful.

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