ibge-br-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool returns details and lists features like state/municipality/district information, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid codes. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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-structured with a clear opening sentence, bullet points for features, and examples. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every sentence adding value (e.g., explaining hierarchy levels and providing concrete examples). Minor room for improvement in brevity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and examples but lacks completeness. It doesn't cover return values, error cases, or advanced usage scenarios. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output info, this is adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral context.

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 ('codigo' and 'tipo') thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing examples of codes, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'returns details of a specific locality by IBGE code', specifying the action (returns details) and resource (locality). It distinguishes from siblings like 'ibge_estados' or 'ibge_municipios' by focusing on individual localities via codes, but doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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 implies usage through examples (e.g., São Paulo state code=35), suggesting it's for fetching details when you have an IBGE code. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'ibge_idades' or 'ibge_estados', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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