Busca de tabelas SIDRA

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior; the description reinforces this by stating it performs a live GET against the public IBGE SIDRA API and returns a Markdown table. It does not add details about rate limits or failure modes, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 bullets, examples, and a workflow note. Every section earns its place: capabilities, surveys, examples, and usage guidance are compact and front-loaded.

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 zero-required-params design, simple schema, output schema present, and rich annotations, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and where it fits in the workflow. Nothing critical is missing.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds examples (busca='população', pesquisa='censo') and explains the purpose of each field, but it does not go far beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states it lists and searches SIDRA tables, with concrete capabilities and examples that distinguish it from query/metadata stages. It explicitly positions itself as step 1 of a workflow, making the resource and verb unambiguous.

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?

Clearly explains when to use this tool: for finding a table code before consulting metadados and querying data. It also names easier wrappers (ibge_censo, ibge_indicadores, ibge_comparar, ibge_cidades) for common data, giving explicit routing guidance.

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