ibge_censo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It lists available years, themes, and territorial levels, and provides examples. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, data availability constraints, or the nature of the output (e.g., aggregated statistics). The behavioral coverage is adequate but not thorough.

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, available years, themes, and examples. It is concise but includes all essential information. The structure aids readability, though the theme list could be more aligned with the schema.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description should provide comprehensive context. It explains the tool's purpose, parameters, and examples. However, it lacks details on output format characteristics (e.g., table vs JSON structure), limitations, and error responses. The inconsistent theme list also reduces 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions. The description adds value through examples illustrating parameter combinations (e.g., ano='todos', tema='populacao', nivel_territorial='3'). However, the listed themes in the description are incomplete compared to the schema, missing several enum values (migracao, indigenas, etc.), which may mislead users.

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 queries IBGE Demographic Census data from 1970-2022, simplifying access without needing SIDRA table codes, distinguishing it from sibling ibge_sidra. It lists available years and themes, providing a concrete verb+resource scope.

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 differentiates from tools like ibge_sidra by stating it avoids table codes. It includes examples for different use cases (single year, historical series, by state). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide context for alternative sibling tools.

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