ibge_estados

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It accurately indicates a read-only listing operation ('Lists') and describes features like filtering and sorting. It does not mention side effects because there are none. The description is honest and complete for a simple data retrieval tool.

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 compact and well-organized using bullet points for features and examples. Every sentence adds value: the verb 'Lists', the exact count, filter options, and practical examples. No unnecessary words.

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?

The tool is simple (list states with optional filters) and the description covers all essential aspects: what it lists, how to filter and sort, and examples. Without an output schema, it doesn't detail the return format but that is acceptable for a low-complexity tool expecting a list of state objects.

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?

Both parameters (regiao, ordenar) are fully described in the input schema with enums and descriptions. The tool description repeats this information without adding new meaning. According to guidelines, with schema_description_coverage at 100%, baseline is 3, so this score 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 it lists Brazilian states, specifying the exact count of 27 (26 states + Federal District). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ibge_municipios (municipalities) and ibge_paises (countries) by focusing on states.

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 clear examples showing how to use the tool with no parameters, filtering by region, and sorting. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, the examples make usage straightforward. Slightly lacking explicit when-not-to-use guidance but adequate.

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