Retrieve pre-reviewed fixed multi-signal ecological indicators for SUS aggregate analysis by context, year, and UF; outputs are not patient-level case findings.
Pre-reviewed fixed multi-signal ecological hits, not patient case finding.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uf | Yes | ||
| year | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| context | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. Saying results are 'pre-reviewed fixed' hints that the data is curated/static rather than live, and 'not patient case finding' clarifies the aggregation level, but it says nothing about read-only behavior, permissions, result shape, or how the fixed dataset is scoped.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally efficient. The brevity, however, crosses into under-specification rather than useful concision.
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 a four-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description leaves the agent without enough information to invoke it correctly. Critical details about parameter semantics and expected results are entirely absent.
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%, and the description provides no information about the four parameters. It never explains what 'context', 'year', 'uf', or 'limit' mean or what values are expected, so it fails to compensate for the bare schema.
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 names the resource ('ecological hits') and adds qualifiers ('pre-reviewed fixed multi-signal'), but supplies no verb and never explains what a 'hit' is or how it differs from the sibling tools. It is closer to an expanded restatement of the tool name than a clear statement of purpose.
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 phrase 'not patient case finding' gives an explicit when-not signal and implies this is for population/ecological-level analysis rather than individual case lookup. However, it names no sibling alternative and gives no positive when-to-use condition beyond that exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.