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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description repeats these rather than contradicting them. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it is a live GET against the public IBGE SIDRA API and returns Markdown.

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 clear opening, feature bullets, examples, and a behavior note. It is slightly redundant because the workflow guidance appears twice ('BEFORE querying' and 'Use this after finding... before querying'), but overall every section earns its place.

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 moderate complexity, full schema coverage, existing output schema, and strong annotations, the description provides enough context: workflow placement, example table codes, metadata content categories, return format, and API behavior. The optional parameters are adequately documented in the schema, so their absence from the description is not a significant gap.

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 already covers 100% of the parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds illustrative examples (tabela='6579', '9514', '4714') that help contextualize realistic values, but it does not add much semantic meaning beyond the schema's existing parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns metadata for a specific SIDRA table.' It also differentiates from siblings by placing it in the workflow between ibge_sidra_tabelas and ibge_sidra, so an agent can tell it apart from the related list and data-query 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?

The usage guidance is explicit: use this tool to understand table structure BEFORE querying data with ibge_sidra, after finding a table code via ibge_sidra_tabelas. This directly tells the agent when to use this tool relative to its closest sibling tools.

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