ibge_cnae

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Description implies a read-only query operation but does not explicitly state it is read-only or disclose any side effects. It covers basic behavior but lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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?

Description is well-structured with bullet points for hierarchy and features, plus examples. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should ideally describe return values. It does not explain the output format or structure of results, leaving the agent to infer. While the tool is simple (classification lookup), this is a gap.

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%, but description adds significant value with examples for each parameter (e.g., codigo examples for each hierarchy level, busca with terms like 'software', nivel enum values explained, limite default). This goes beyond schema to clarify usage patterns.

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?

Description clearly states the tool queries CNAE (economic activities classification) from IBGE. It distinguishes from many IBGE sibling tools by focusing specifically on CNAE with detailed hierarchical structure and examples.

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?

Description provides examples and features (search by code, description, hierarchy), giving clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings.

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