ibge_pesquisas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool lists surveys, searches, and shows details, implying read-only behavior. It does not mention rate limits, authentication, or response structure, but these are less critical for a listing tool. The examples clarify behavior well.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and uses bullet points and examples for readability. It is slightly verbose with the list of main surveys, but each section adds value. Overall, it is well-organized and efficient for an agent.

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 no output schema and two optional parameters, the description adequately covers its functionality: listing, searching, and detailing surveys. It does not explain return format or pagination, but for a simple listing tool, this is sufficient for correct agent invocation.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions in Portuguese. The description adds value by providing concrete examples (e.g., 'detalhes="pnad"') and listing survey names that can be used as codes. This helps agents understand usage beyond the schema, though more detail on code format could be added.

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 available IBGE surveys and their tables.' It provides specific verbs ('list', 'search', 'show') and resources (surveys, tables), and includes examples and a list of main surveys, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like ibge_sidra or ibge_censo.

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 (e.g., 'List all: (no parameters)', 'Search population: busca="população"') and enumerates features. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives among siblings, such as when to use ibge_sidra for data extraction instead.

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