Comparação entre localidades

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context beyond annotations by naming the live GET against public IBGE APIs (SIDRA and Localidades) and specifying the Markdown plus structuredContent return shape. Minor gap: no mention of rate limits or authentication expectations, but annotations reduce the burden.

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 longer than average but well structured with clear sections: indicators, features, examples, usage guidance, and behavior. Each section earns its place, though the indicator list partly duplicates the schema's enum descriptions.

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, annotations, and enum-constrained parameters, the description covers scope, constraints, alternatives, API behavior, and output format. The only notable completeness issue is the pib description mismatch, which could mislead an agent about what the indicator actually measures.

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 does add useful examples, the 10-locality limit, and code-format clarification, but it also introduces a misleading label: 'pib: GDP per capita' conflicts with the schema's 'PIB a preços correntes (Mil Reais)'. This prevents a higher score.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Compares data between localities (municipalities or states).' It also clearly differentiates itself from siblings by positioning itself as the comparison/ranking tool and naming single-locality alternatives. The indicator list and examples reinforce what the tool does.

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 usage boundaries: 'Use this tool ONLY to rank/compare 2–10 localities on one indicator.' It also names alternative tools for single-locality queries (ibge_cidades, ibge_censo, ibge_sidra), which is strong routing guidance.

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