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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description reinforces this while adding new context: it is a live GET against the public IBGE Calendário API and returns a Markdown list. The event-type clarification (Release vs Collection) further aids the agent in understanding what the tool exposes.

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 well-structured with a one-sentence summary, bullet-point features, an event-type breakdown, practical examples, and a routing note. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important purpose information is front-loaded.

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 an output schema exists and the input schema is fully covered, the description adds everything needed: usage examples, event-type semantics, API behavior, return format, and a sibling alternative. No critical gap remains for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful enrichment: examples mapping produto to 'IPCA', de/ate to date ranges, and tipo to 'coleta'. It explains the semantics of the two event types, which supplements the schema's enum descriptions without redundancy.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Queries') and resource ('IBGE release and collection calendar'), then breaks down the tool's features. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from ibge_noticias by naming the sibling for published news, removing any ambiguity about scope.

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 gives clear usage context with bullet-pointed features and concrete examples for different filters. It explicitly states 'Use a different tool when: Already-published news and releases → ibge_noticias', providing a direct alternative and exclusion.

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