consultar_municipios_ibge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool queries an external API and returns specific fields. However, it does not mention behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication, or error handling for invalid UF input. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, then describes the optional filter, and ends with the return fields. It is perfectly concise and structured for quick parsing.

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 tool has a single optional parameter, high schema coverage, and an output schema (context indicates presence), the description is largely complete. It could optionally mention the data source (IBGE) or limitations, but it covers the key aspects of input, filtering, and output.

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 description coverage is 100% with the 'uf' parameter having a clear description. The tool description adds value by summarizing the return fields (id, name, microrregião, state) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate due to high coverage.

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 queries Brazilian municipalities via the IBGE Localidades API, optionally filters by UF (state abbreviation), and returns specific fields (id, name, microrregião, state). This distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that handle different data like CNPJ, CEP, or tax regimes.

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 states the tool returns municipalities, optionally filtered by UF, which provides clear context. It does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or mention alternatives, but given the variety of sibling tools, the specific purpose is clear enough.

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