ibge-br-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: the tool queries census data, provides available years (1970-2022) and themes with explanations, offers examples of different query patterns, and mentions the 'listar' option to list available tables. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, but provides substantial operational context.

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 perfectly structured and concise. It starts with the core purpose, explains the simplification benefit, lists available years and themes with clear explanations, and provides practical examples. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or wasted words. The information is front-loaded with the most important details first.

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 5-parameter query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent context. It explains what data is available, how to use parameters, and includes examples. The main gap is the lack of output format details (what 'tabela' vs 'json' actually returns), but given the comprehensive parameter explanations and examples, it's mostly 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema: it provides thematic explanations for each 'tema' value (e.g., 'populacao: Resident population'), clarifies the tool's simplified nature, and gives concrete examples showing how parameters combine. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's enum descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Queries IBGE Demographic Census data (1970-2022)' with the specific verb 'queries' and resource 'IBGE Demographic Census data'. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing it's a 'simplified tool to access census data without knowing SIDRA table codes', differentiating it from ibge_sidra and ibge_sidra_tabelas which likely require table codes.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'Simplified tool to access census data without knowing SIDRA table codes' implies it's the easier alternative to ibge_sidra tools. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, but the context strongly suggests this is the primary census data query tool for users unfamiliar with SIDRA codes.

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