Censo Demográfico

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by stating it is 'a live GET against the public IBGE SIDRA API' and specifying the return shape: 'Markdown plus a typed structuredContent payload.' It also discloses the important statistics-mode quirk that 'campos/formato are ignored and registros comes empty.' This is valuable behavioral context the annotations alone do not provide.

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 with clear sections: purpose, years, themes, examples, statistics mode, alternatives, and behavior. It front-loads the main purpose and uses bullet lists and code-style examples that are easy to scan. Although somewhat long, every section earns its place for a tool with 9 optional parameters.

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 complex 9-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers valid years, commonly used themes, example parameter combinations, statistics mode, sibling routing, and network/return behavior. The only notable gap is that the 'Available themes' list presents itself as exhaustive while omitting several valid enum values; the schema fills the gap, but the description is slightly incomplete on its own.

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 covers all parameters at 100%, so the bar is lower. The description adds practical combinations and clarifies statistics-mode behavior (estatisticas, agruparPor, topN, ignored campos/formato). It falls slightly short because the 'Available themes' list is partial compared with the schema enum, omitting themes like migracao, indigenas, quilombolas, saneamento, deficiencia, nupcialidade, and fecundidade.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Queries IBGE Demographic Census data (1970-2022)' and positions it as a simplified alternative to SIDRA table codes. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming what it is not (ibge_cidades, ibge_comparar, ibge_sidra), so an agent can select it confidently.

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 'Use a different tool when' section gives explicit routing to alternatives: current municipal panel data to ibge_cidades, locality comparison/ranking to ibge_comparar, and arbitrary SIDRA tables to ibge_sidra. It also gives concrete examples for common queries and clearly states when to enable statistics mode.

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