ibge_estados

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it is a 'live GET against the public IBGE Localidades API' and 'Returns a Markdown table', providing behavioral context beyond what annotations alone offer.

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 concise and well-structured: two brief paragraphs with a bullet list of features and examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 has an output schema (from context signals), rich annotations, and only two parameters, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and examples with no missing gaps.

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 schema already documents both parameters well. The description mentions filtering by region and sorting in examples but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists all Brazilian states from IBGE, mentions specific features (27 states, filter by region, sort by fields), and distinguishes from sibling tools like ibge_municipios and ibge_localidade by specifying when to use those instead.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it gives examples for listing all states, filtering by region, and sorting, and explicitly says 'Use a different tool when: Municipalities of a state → ibge_municipios; Details/hierarchy of one locality by code → ibge_localidade'.

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