cnes_search_cnes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates a read-only search operation via 'busca', but doesn't disclose return format, error handling, or whether multiple results are possible. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure for a simple read tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No waste.

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?

The tool is simple with a single required parameter, and an output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values. It adequately covers the purpose, but lacks comparative context with sibling search tools, which is a minor gap given its simplicity.

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 parameter is fully described in the schema with pattern and explanation, giving 100% coverage. The description adds little beyond restating the seven-digit code, but since schema is complete, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Busca' (searches) and identifies the resource as an establishment, clearly stating the search key is the seven-digit CNES code. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cnes_search_municipio and cnes_search_uf, which search by other criteria.

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 the tool is used when searching by CNES code, which is clear from the phrase 'pelo código CNES'. However, it doesn't explicitly compare against alternatives or state when to prefer this over the municipality or UF searches, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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