agrobr-mcp

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 describes what data is retrieved but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. For a data retrieval tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.

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 well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement, a list of valid states, and parameter explanations in a bullet-like format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, valid inputs, and parameter meanings, though it could benefit from more behavioral context given the lack of annotations.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'uf' is a state abbreviation with examples, 'ano' is the year with a default, and 'agregacao' specifies daily or monthly aggregation with a default. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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's purpose: retrieving recent climate data (temperature, precipitation, radiation, humidity, wind) by state. It specifies the resource (climate data) and scope (by state), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'preco_diario' or 'producao_anual' which might have overlapping geographical scopes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists valid states and parameters but doesn't mention sibling tools or contexts where this tool is preferred, such as for climate-specific data versus other environmental or agricultural tools on the server.

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