ibge_cidades

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds value by stating 'Behavior: read-only and idempotent — a live GET against the public IBGE APIs (Cidades@/agregados). Returns Markdown plus a typed structuredContent payload.', which provides context beyond the 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 with clear sections, bullet points for features, examples, and a behavior note. Each sentence adds value, and the content is front-loaded with essential information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, many sibling tools), the description fully covers purpose, usage, parameters, behavior, and output. An output schema exists, and the description mentions return format, making it 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% with all five parameters described. The description further adds examples for each tipo, lists available indicators, and provides example calls like 'tipo="panorama", municipio="3550308"', adding semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 municipal indicators from IBGE (similar to Cidades@ portal). It lists specific features like overview, query, historical data, and available indicators, and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools by stating it is for a single municipality.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, listing four specific sibling tools (ibge_populacao, ibge_censo, ibge_comparar, ibge_indicadores) and their appropriate use cases.

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