consultar_estado_ibge

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

The description discloses the expected output (id, sigla, nome oficial, região geográfica) and implies a read-only query through 'Consulta'. However, it does not mention potential side effects, error conditions, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic query function. Given no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden but only partially covers it.

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 efficiently states the purpose, the method, and the expected result. The structure is logical and straightforward, making it easy to parse and understand.

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?

The description completely covers the tool's basic operation and output fields, which is sufficient for a simple query tool. It does not include error cases or edge situations, but given its simple nature and the explicit output description, the context is adequately complete. No additional explanation of the output schema is needed.

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 description repeats the parameter concept ('pela sigla da UF') but does not add new information beyond the schema's existing description for 'uf'. The schema already provides the parameter type and example values, so the description adds no extra semantic detail to guide usage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it queries Brazilian state data by the state acronym via the IBGE API. It explicitly lists the returned fields (id, sigla, nome oficial, região geográfica), making the tool's function unambiguous. The verb 'Consulta' is specific, and the object and scope are well-defined.

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 implicitly differentiates this tool from siblings like 'consultar_municipios_ibge' by specifying 'estado brasileiro', but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives. No direct usage instructions or conditions are provided, leaving the agent to infer based on context.

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