ibge_nomes

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

The description adds beyond annotations by stating the tool is a live GET against the public IBGE Nomes API, returns a Markdown table, and is read-only and idempotent. Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc., but the description adds context about the exact API and output format, which is useful.

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 bullet points, clear sections for features, and examples. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. A few sentences could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient and easy to scan.

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 output schema exists (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers all necessary aspects: the two query modes, parameters, filtering options, available decades, and examples. It is complete for a query tool and all sibling tools are distinct.

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% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds examples that clarify parameter combinations (e.g., multiple names separated by comma, specifying decada for ranking). While the schema already documents parameters, the examples enhance understanding 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 from IBGE in Brazil. It distinguishes between two modes (tipo='frequencia' and tipo='ranking'), with specific features for each, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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 guidance on when to use each tipo with examples (e.g., frequency for specific names, ranking for popular names). It also explains parameters like decada, sexo, and localidade. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though siblings are different.

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