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. It discloses the tool's behavior: checking API status and returning which are responding/have issues. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, whether it makes external calls, or what specific 'issues' might include. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but lacks operational details.

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 perfectly concise: three brief sentences with zero waste. First sentence states the purpose, second describes the return value, third provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, has output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it. With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, for a diagnostic tool with no annotations, it could benefit from mentioning whether it requires special permissions or has any side effects.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It focuses on what the tool does rather than parameter details, which is correct for a parameterless tool.

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: 'Check the status of agrobr data sources' with the specific action 'check' and target 'agrobr data sources'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on system health rather than data retrieval or processing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'balanco' could also involve status checking).

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 provides clear usage context: 'Useful to diagnose when a tool returns an error.' This gives a specific when-to-use scenario. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for similar purposes.

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