ibge_vizinhos

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

Description confirms read-only and idempotent behavior, aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint). It also notes it's a live GET against public API and returns Markdown list, adding transparency beyond 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?

Description is well-structured with bullet points for features, clear notes, examples, and a succinct behavior statement. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.

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 rich annotations, full schema coverage, and existing output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, limitations, examples, and behavioral traits. It is complete for an AI agent to select and invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds examples illustrating parameter usage and clarifies that 'incluir_dados' includes population data, providing some added context beyond 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 it finds nearby municipalities, specifying search methods (IBGE code or name), result scope (same mesoregion), and optional population data. It distinguishes itself from ibge_municipios, providing clear differentiation.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'For listing/searching municipalities, use ibge_municipios.' Also explains limitation (mesoregion as proxy) and gives examples for different input scenarios.

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