buscar_municipios_por_nome

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: case and accent insensitivity, and that it returns IBGE codes. It could mention rate limits or result ordering, but the provided info is helpful and accurate.

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 succinct sentences: first states the core action, second adds behavioral details and a use case. No redundant words; every sentence provides essential information.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown), so the description need not detail return structure. It covers the input purpose, search behavior, and typical use. Could briefly mention that results are a list of municipalities with codes, but missing that is minor.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the case/accent insensitivity for 'nome', clarifying that 'uf' accepts both sigla and ID, and setting expectations for 'limit'. This exceeds mere repetition of schema.

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 it searches municipalities by name, and explicitly distinguishes its value from siblings by mentioning it helps discover the IBGE code from a name, which is a specific use case not covered by listar_municipios or obter_municipio.

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 provides a concrete use case (discovering IBGE code from name) and implies when to use this tool over others. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for other scenarios.

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