ibge_localidade

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It notes the tool returns details and lists features, but does not disclose response format, potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a read-only tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 very concise: a single introductory sentence, three bullet points for features, and three clear examples. Every sentence is meaningful with no 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's complexity (simple parameter set, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns (state, municipality, district, hierarchy). It could mention if the response contains nested objects or error cases, but overall complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the description adds value by explaining the IBGE code length logic (2, 7, 9 digits) and providing concrete examples. It clarifies the optional 'tipo' parameter's inference behavior, going beyond schema.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Returns details of a specific locality by IBGE code' and distinguishes the tool by covering three locality types (state, municipality, district) with hierarchy features. It is specific and helps distinguish from siblings like ibge_municipios or ibge_estados.

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 context for when to use (to retrieve locality details by IBGE code) with examples, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., ibge_municipios, ibge_estados) or state when not to use it. Usage is implied but lacks exclusions.

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