ibge_malhas

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses behavioral aspects such as returning maps in multiple formats, resolution levels, and quality levels. It adds context beyond the schema, explaining what each parameter does. Missing are warnings about potential large responses or rate limits, but overall it is transparent.

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: a main sentence followed by bullet points and examples. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all parameters with explanations and examples. It could mention potential output size or error handling, but for the given complexity, it is sufficiently 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining resolution values (e.g., '0 = Outline only'), locality types (abbreviations, codes), and giving examples. This goes beyond the schema's enum descriptions.

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 'Gets geographic meshes (maps) from IBGE in GeoJSON, TopoJSON, or SVG format', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on meshes/maps, and the context of many IBGE tools makes this differentiation effective.

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 examples and explains locality types, resolution, and formats, giving clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, which would strengthen guidance.

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