Documento para Deep Research

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses that the tool performs 'a live GET against the public source when the document needs it' and that invalid ids error. This adds concrete behavioral context without contradicting any annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, with the return value, usage context, and behavior in separate digestible parts. It is slightly redundant with annotations in the 'read-only and idempotent' phrase, and 'when the document needs it' is a bit vague, but overall it is efficient.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the required id source, error behavior, return semantics, and sibling-tool routing. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema already fully documents id as a document identifier returned by search, so the description mostly restates that constraint. It adds no format, length, or other parameter details beyond what the schema provides, making the high-coverage baseline of 3 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 opening sentence states a specific action, 'Returns the full document for an id obtained from search', and specifies the exact return shape as { id, title, text, url, metadata }. This clearly distinguishes fetch from the ibge_* data-query siblings and identifies it as the document-retrieval counterpart of search.

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 explicitly limits valid inputs to ids returned by search and warns that unknown ids produce an error. It also names the alternative tool family, ibge_*, for data queries, giving the agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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