territorio_data_caveats

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden. It adds useful behavioral context: the output includes evidence and provenance and the tool is meant to be consulted before cross-referencing. However, it does not disclose call-level behavior such as whether id filters results, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects.

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 compact and front-loaded: two short sentences that state the resource and the recommended use without filler. It is appropriately brief, though the brevity contributes to the lack of parameter explanation.

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 caveats-lookup tool, the description conveys the core purpose and the trigger condition, and the absence of required parameters makes an empty call plausible. But it does not explain the id parameter, what 'destas bases' refers to, or the structure of the returned caveats, so it is only minimally 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the id parameter or explains what it selects or filters. With one optional parameter and zero schema guidance, the description needed to compensate but does not, leaving the agent with no parameter semantics.

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 identifies the tool as providing known pitfalls of the databases, with evidence and provenance. It stops short of an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', and it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling data-lookup tools, but the resource and intent are clear.

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 phrase 'Use antes de cruzar com outras bases' explicitly tells the agent when to invoke this tool: before joining or crossing with other datasets. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of full usage guidance.

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