consultar_estado_ibge

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It states the action is a 'consulta' (read) via an external API, hinting at network dependency and potential latency. However, it does not disclose error handling, authorization needs, or idempotency. The return fields are specified, which is helpful.

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?

Two short sentences: first states the action and source, second lists returned fields. No redundant information, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers functionality and return values. Missing error or validation details, but overall sufficient for its low complexity.

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% with a clear parameter description ('Sigla do estado'). The description only briefly repeats 'pela sigla da UF', adding no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 state data by UF abbreviation via the IBGE API, and lists exact return fields (id, sigla, nome oficial, região). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'consultar_municipios_ibge' which focus on municipalities.

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 does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It implies usage for state data queries but does not contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'consultar_municipios_ibge' for municipalities) or mention prerequisites like API availability.

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