cnes_search_uf

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

The description gives minimal behavioral information: it implies a read-only search operation and the filtering by UF and bed range. However, it does not disclose any additional behavior such as pagination, result limits, or the nature of the response, which would be important given no annotations are provided.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It has no redundancy, but it is also quite sparse; it could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 has a comprehensive schema (100% param coverage) and an output schema, the description only needs to convey the core purpose, which it does. However, it lacks any mention of the intended use case relative to sibling tools, making it somewhat incomplete for an AI agent.

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 schema descriptions cover all four parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds little semantic value. It does mention the 'faixa opcional de leitos' concept, but the schema already defines min_leitos and max_leitos inclusiveness, so the description adds no new dimension.

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 the resource 'estabelecimentos' (establishments), clearly stating the search by UF and optional bed range. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cnes_search_municipio (different filter) and cnes_search_cnes (search by CNES).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It only states what it does, without mentioning conditions, alternatives, or exclusions.

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