ibge-br-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: returns 7-digit IBGE codes, can return all 5,570 municipalities, and shows parameter interactions through examples. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions that would be important for a public API tool.

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 purpose statement, bullet-pointed features, and practical examples. Every sentence adds value, though the bullet points could be integrated more smoothly into prose. The information is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 read-only data lookup tool with 3 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should ideally describe the return format more explicitly (beyond just mentioning 7-digit codes) and address potential limitations like response size or pagination for large result sets.

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 all parameters well. The description adds value by showing practical examples of parameter usage (uf='SP', busca='Campinas') and clarifying that uf is optional for returning all municipalities. It doesn't add syntax details beyond the schema but provides helpful semantic context.

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's purpose: 'Lists Brazilian municipalities from IBGE' with specific capabilities (list by state, list all, search by name). It distinguishes from siblings like ibge_estados (states) and ibge_cidades (cities) by focusing specifically on municipalities with IBGE codes.

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 clear usage context through examples showing when to use specific parameters (uf for state filtering, busca for name search). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like ibge_cidades or ibge_localidade, which appear to be related sibling tools.

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