Malhas temáticas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to repeat those. It adds useful context by stating this is a live GET against the public IBGE Malhas API and that it returns GeoJSON, TopoJSON, or SVG, giving the agent a concrete behavioral model.

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 purpose statement, bulleted theme and code lists, concrete examples, and an explicit alternative-tool note. Every section earns its place and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 strong annotations and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral and routing context. The only minor gap is that `codigo` values are fully documented only for biomes, not for other themes like metropolitana or ride, but the examples and schema mitigate this.

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 goes beyond the schema by adding English theme names, biome codes, and realistic parameter combinations such as tema='biomas' with codigo='1' and resolucao='5'. This meaningfully clarifies the otherwise generic `codigo` parameter, though not every theme's codes are enumerated.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('thematic geographic meshes from IBGE'), and the theme list plus examples make the scope concrete. It also differentiates from the sibling ibge_malhas by explicitly naming administrative meshes as out of scope.

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 explicitly says when to use a different tool ('Administrative meshes → ibge_malhas') and provides concrete examples for common calls. This gives an agent clear when/when-not guidance alongside the named alternative.

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