cnes_search_municipio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It correctly uses the verb 'Busca', implying a read-only search operation, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as result limits, default pagination, or whether the search is case-sensitive. The output schema covers return values, but the description itself adds minimal behavioral context beyond the core action.

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 a single sentence that conveys the essential purpose and scope without any filler. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately short for a tool whose details are largely in the schema.

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 output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's function. It correctly highlights the main filters (municipality and bed range) and the tool's focus, while the output schema covers return values. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of the 'limit' parameter, but the schema already documents it.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description refers to the key parameters (municipio, min_leitos, max_leitos) through 'município' and 'faixa opcional de leitos', but it does not add any syntax, format, or interaction details beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema semantics.

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 it searches establishments ('estabelecimentos') by municipality ('munícipio') and optional bed range ('faixa opcional de leitos'), using a specific verb 'Busca'. The municipality scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like cnes_search_uf, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 'por município' clearly implies the intended use case for municipality-based searches, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly exclude other use cases or mention alternatives like cnes_search_uf, so it lacks explicit exclusions but is still clear enough for an agent to infer when to use it.

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