Pesquisas do IBGE

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: it is a 'live GET against the public IBGE SIDRA/Pesquisas API' and 'Returns a Markdown list', which helps set expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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 Features, Main surveys, Examples, and sibling differentiation, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is somewhat long due to the main surveys list, but that list provides useful context for crafting search terms, so it earns its place.

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 list-and-detail tool, this description is complete: it states the main operation, gives search examples, explains the survey themes, clearly separates this tool from data-retrieval siblings, and describes behavior and return format. An output schema exists for structured return details, so not describing every field in the description is acceptable.

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%, so both parameters already have descriptions. The description adds concrete examples ('busca="população"', 'detalhes="pnad"') that illustrate the expected value formats and use cases, going beyond the schema's basic field definitions.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb and resource: 'Lists available IBGE surveys and their tables.' It then explicitly differentiates from siblings with 'This lists surveys, not data. To find table codes use ibge_sidra_tabelas; to query data use ibge_sidra', so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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 explicit routing guidance: 'This lists surveys, not data. To find table codes use ibge_sidra_tabelas; to query data use ibge_sidra (or a wrapper: ibge_censo, ibge_indicadores, ibge_comparar, ibge_cidades).' It also provides concrete examples for list, search, and details, making when-to-use unambiguous.

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