ibge_nomes

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses data returned (birth frequency by decade, top names) and filtering options, but does not mention response format, error handling, or data source limitations. Adequate for a read-only query 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?

Well-structured with bullet points and examples. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core purpose, then features, then examples. Appropriate length.

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 has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main capabilities and provides concrete examples. It could mention what the response looks like or that data is from IBGE census, but overall it's sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds practical guidance (e.g., multiple names separated by comma, decade ranges 1930-2010) and examples that clarify parameter usage beyond the 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 clearly states the tool queries name frequency and rankings in Brazil (IBGE), with two distinct modes 'frequencia' and 'ranking'. It distinguishes itself from sibling IBGE tools by its specific focus on names.

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?

Provides clear context with examples for each mode (frequency and ranking), including how to filter by sex, locality, etc. Does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to siblings, but the context is sufficient.

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