territorio_regiao

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return content (totals and municipality list) and the flexible input modes (UF, region code, or municipality code). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it cover error behavior, authentication, or rate limits, leaving the safety profile partially unspecified.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise note on an alternative input mode. Every clause adds useful information: the region types, the 2017 official division, the output fields, and the flexible code input. No filler or redundancy.

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 there is no output schema, the description partially compensates by listing the output fields (municipality count, population, GDP, and municipality list) and clarifying the official regional division. It omits error behavior and the interaction between `nivel` and a municipality-code `codigo`, but it is reasonably complete for a read-oriented aggregate tool.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the accepted code formats and the default inclusion of the municipality list, but it does not add meaningful semantic detail 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 identifies the resource (region) and scope (totals of municipalities count, population, GDP, and municipality list), and notes the special ability to pass a municipality code to get its region. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on region-level aggregates rather than a single municipality, but it lacks an explicit imperative verb for the main action (e.g., 'Retorna').

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 gives clear usage context: use it to get aggregate totals for a UF, intermediate, or immediate region, or to find which region a given municipality belongs to. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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