Metadados de tabela SIDRA

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

The description states 'Behavior: read-only and idempotent — a live GET against the public IBGE SIDRA API. Returns Markdown.' This adds useful context beyond the annotations (live GET, Markdown output) and aligns perfectly with the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations. No contradiction.

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 a clear topic sentence, bulleted feature list, usage guidance, examples, and behavioral note. Each section adds distinct value without redundancy, making it both concise and informative 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 output schema exists, return values need not be detailed in the description. The description covers purpose, usage context, dependencies (after ibge_sidra_tabelas), and behavior. The tool is a straightforward metadata retrieval operation, and the description fully equips an agent to select and invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description includes examples of table codes (6579, 9514, 4714) but does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. For instance, 'incluir_periodos' and 'incluir_localidades' are already clearly described in the schema. The tool description provides no extra semantic depth for parameters.

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 'Returns metadata for a specific SIDRA table' and enumerates the exact metadata features (general info, territorial levels, variables, classifications, periods). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning it between ibge_sidra_tabelas (finding codes) and ibge_sidra (querying data).

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this tool to understand table structure BEFORE querying data with ibge_sidra' and 'Use this after finding a table code (ibge_sidra_tabelas) and before querying with ibge_sidra.' This clearly states when to use and how it fits in the workflow, with no ambiguity.

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