Buscar prestador por CPF

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the tool is known to be safe and side-effect-free. The description adds that it returns only ID and Nome, which is useful context. However, it does not explain what happens if the CPF is not found (likely empty or error? no indication).

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It immediately states the output fields and the input key. Perfectly concise for a simple lookup tool.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, simple lookup), the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks mention of error handling (e.g., CPF not found) and does not specify if the result is guaranteed to be unique. Completeness is acceptable but not thorough.

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 coverage is 100% (only one parameter 'cpf' with format and description). The description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema already provides—it repeats the purpose. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Retorna o ID e o Nome do prestador a partir do CPF' clearly states the verb (retorna) and resource (prestador por CPF), specifying the key fields returned (ID, Nome). It distinguishes from sibling tools which handle appointments, KPIs, and units.

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 usage for searching a provider by CPF, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., need for exactly matching CPF). No guidance on when not to use it.

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