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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description's job is to add payload context — and it does: it discloses the full return composition and the important edge-case behavior that missing indicators come back with null values. It stops short of stating size/volume expectations or whether the Radar block is absent or empty for states.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause names real payload content rather than filler. The downside is that the entire definition is one very long, comma-chained sentence, which makes the município-only Radar branch easy to miss.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing return values, and it does so thoroughly, including null handling and the conditional município block. The remaining gap is routing — nothing tells the agent why to pick this over get_territory_profile.

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% and the single 'code' parameter is fully documented in the schema (2-digit UF, 7-digit município IBGE code), so the description need not repeat it. The description adds only the contextual note that município codes unlock additional Radar fields, which is marginal but useful.

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?

Specific verb and resource: returns the territorial intelligence map profile for a município or estado, and it enumerates the payload (indicator values, periods, sources, national/state ranking, medians, similar territories, and Radar signals for municípios). An agent can grasp what it does immediately. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling get_territory_profile or explain how its Radar output relates to get_opportunity_radar.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (get_territory_profile, get_opportunity_radar, get_panorama). The only implicit signal is that município codes return extra Radar content, which a caller must infer from the phrasing 'para município'.

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