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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description reinforces this and adds 'a live GET against the public IBGE APIs' plus the return shape ('Markdown plus a typed structuredContent payload'). It doesn't mention rate limits or data freshness, but given the annotation coverage this is a minor gap.

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?

Well-structured with labeled sections: features, available indicators, examples, sibling routing, and behavior. The single-municipality scope is boldly emphasized. No filler or redundant sentences.

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?

Covers purpose, scope, exclusions, examples, valid indicator vocabulary, and return format. With full schema coverage, annotations, and output schema present, nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this 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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3; the description adds value by listing valid indicator names and giving examples that map tipo, municipio, and indicador to specific calls (e.g., São Paulo panorama). This goes beyond the schema's brief Portuguese descriptions.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Queries municipal indicators from IBGE' — and immediately names the Cidades@ portal. It explicitly says 'This tool is the panel for a SINGLE municipality' and contrasts it with censo/comparar/indicadores, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools.

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?

Provides concrete 'Use a different tool when' routing rules naming ibge_censo, ibge_comparar, and ibge_indicadores. It also gives worked examples for each tipo value, making invocation conditions and parameter combinations explicit.

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