Panorama municipal (Cidades@)

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

The description states that the tool is read-only and idempotent, performs a live GET against the public IBGE APIs, and returns Markdown plus a typed structuredContent payload. This adds concrete behavioral context beyond the annotations, including the output format and API interaction style.

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 a clear opening, feature bullets, a compact indicator list, concrete examples, sibling routing, and a behavior note. Everything included earns its place and the most important scoping constraint is front-loaded.

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 output schema, the 100% schema coverage, and the annotation set, the description is complete enough for an agent to select this tool, understand its scope, and construct valid calls. It also covers the main alternative tools, which is rare and valuable for tool selection.

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%, so each parameter already has a description, but the tool description adds meaningful value by listing valid indicator names (populacao, area, densidade, etc.) and giving usage examples that clarify how tipo, municipio, and indicador combine. It stops short of exhaustively documenting every possible indicator or pesquisa ID.

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 municipal indicators from IBGE' and clarifies it is the panel for a SINGLE municipality. It explicitly names sibling tools (ibge_censo, ibge_comparar, ibge_indicadores) and distinguishes this tool from them, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

Provides explicit routing guidance: 'Use a different tool when' covering census themes, multiple municipalities, and macro time series. Examples show concrete parameter combinations for overviews, history, surveys, and indicators, leaving little to inference.

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