Calendário de divulgações

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive hints. The description adds context beyond these: it states it is a 'live GET against the public IBGE Calendário API,' implying a network call and no authentication, and notes 'Returns a Markdown list,' which provides additional behavioral detail. This modest added context justifies a 4 rather than 3.

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-organized into sections: purpose, features, event types, examples, alternative tool, and behavior. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundant fluff. The front-loaded intro immediately states the tool's function, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 tool with 6 optional parameters, existing output schema, and annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, filtering options, examples, when to use a different tool, and behavior. The output schema handles return-value details, so the description need not elaborate further. The guidance is complete and self-sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping parameters to concrete examples (produto='IPCA', de/ate, tipo='coleta') and clarifying event types (Release vs. Collection) that align with the tipo enum. It does not explain pagina/quantidade beyond schema defaults, so a 4 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 starts with 'Queries IBGE release and collection calendar,' specifying a clear verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling ibge_noticias by stating 'Use a different tool when: Already-published news and releases → ibge_noticias,' and the event type definitions further clarify its focus.

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?

Guidance is explicit: features list what the tool can do, examples show parameter combinations (e.g., produto='IPCA', de/ate, tipo='coleta'), and the 'Use a different tool when' section names a specific alternative (ibge_noticias). Event types help users choose between release and collection contexts.

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