Detalhes de localidade

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to repeat those facts, though it does. It adds value by stating it is 'a live GET against the public IBGE Localidades API' and that it returns a Markdown record, which is behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.

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-organized with a clear purpose statement, feature bullets, concrete examples, explicit alternative routing, and behavioral note. Each section earns its place, and there is no unnecessary filler or repetition beyond minor restatement of scope.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage boundaries, return format, examples, and behavior. The agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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 adds concrete examples mapping codigo values to state, municipality, and district levels, and clarifies the type inference behavior already present in the schema. This reinforces parameter semantics without being redundant.

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: 'Returns details of a specific locality by IBGE code.' It clearly limits scope to one already-known locality and explicitly names sibling tools for different tasks, so an agent can distinguish it from ibge_geocodigo and ibge_municipios.

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 explicit routing: 'Use a different tool when: You have a name and need the code → ibge_municipios or ibge_geocodigo; You want to decompose/understand a code's structure → ibge_geocodigo.' This directly tells the agent when not to use this tool and which sibling to choose instead.

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