consultar_municipios_ibge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It states that it consults and returns specific fields, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention error handling, rate limits, or behavior when the UF is invalid or no municipalities are found.

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 concise and to the point, covering the tool's action, the optional filter, and the return fields in two sentences without unnecessary detail.

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 specifies the output fields (id, nome, microrregião, estado), which is sufficient for a simple query tool. It lacks details on pagination, errors, or edge cases, but given the straightforward nature and presence of an output schema (as indicated by context), it is adequately complete.

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 single parameter 'uf' is well described in the schema with an example and the behavior when omitted (returns all municipalities). The tool description reinforces this, providing complete semantic clarity for the parameter.

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: consulting Brazilian municipalities via the IBGE Localidades API. It also distinguishes itself from related tools by focusing on municipalities and optionally filtering by UF, making its function unambiguous.

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 explains the optional UF filter and the general behavior, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'consultar_estado_ibge'. While the purpose is clear, there is no direct guidance on selecting this tool over others in the sibling set.

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