obter_estado

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the action is retrieving details, implying a read operation, but does not disclose the response format, potential errors, or any side effects. For a simple lookup tool, this is minimally acceptable but could be more transparent.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, containing no unnecessary words or 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?

Given that an output schema exists (as per context signals), the description does not explain what 'detalhes' are returned. This omission leaves the agent uncertain about the output structure. However, for a simple tool, it is partially complete. More detail would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, clearly defining the 'uf' parameter as accepting a state abbreviation or IBGE ID. The description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is sufficient. Baseline score of 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 action ('Obtém os detalhes') and the resource ('um estado (UF) brasileiro'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'listar_estados' (which lists all states) and 'obter_municipio' (which gets a municipality), though it does not explicitly mention these alternatives.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus others. The description implies its use for getting details of a single state, but lacks information about prerequisites or when not to use it. The parameter description is clear but does not provide usage context beyond that.

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