Frequência e ranking de nomes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive hints, so the incremental burden is low. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is 'a live GET against the public IBGE Nomes (Censo) API' and 'Returns a Markdown table', plus the available decade range.

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 organized: a one-line purpose, two feature bullets, a short decade constraint, four illustrative examples, and a brief behavior note. Every section earns its place, and key facts are 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?

For a six-parameter tool with a full input schema, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is effectively complete. It explains both query modes, supported filters, example usage, decade restrictions, and return format, leaving an agent with enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already documents all six parameters with descriptions, enums, and defaults (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by giving mode-specific combinations, comma-separated name syntax, the supported decade range, and concrete examples for each parameter pattern.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Queries name frequency and rankings in Brazil (IBGE)'. It then clearly distinguishes the two query modes—'frequencia' and 'ranking'—which directly mirrors the `tipo` parameter and separates this tool from its many IBGE 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 gives clear context for when to use each mode, with explicit examples such as using `tipo='frequencia'` for specific names and `tipo='ranking'` for popular names. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use them, but the mode-level guidance is concrete and actionable.

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