Municípios vizinhos

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the underlying API (live GET against IBGE Localidades), the return format (Markdown list), and the key behavioral limitation (proximity approximated by shared mesoregion, not exact adjacency). This adds valuable context beyond the structured 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 front-loaded with purpose and uses helpful examples and notes. However, it repeats the same mesoregion approximation note twice, creating minor redundancy. It remains reasonably concise and readable.

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?

The description covers key aspects: purpose, approximation method, examples, API behavior, return format, and alternatives. It does not clarify how the 'raio' parameter interacts with the mesoregion proxy, which is a completeness gap. Otherwise, it is well-rounded.

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 describes all parameters. The description adds examples for code/name/population but does not mention the 'raio' parameter, which may conflict with the mesoregion-based approximation. This omission could cause confusion, but the schema is sufficient for basic usage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Finds nearby/neighboring municipalities.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the 'neighboring' scope and by explicitly directing users to ibge_municipios for general listing/searching.

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 explicit usage context: it explains the mesoregion approximation and advises that exact spatial adjacency would require mesh processing. It also names an alternative tool (ibge_municipios) for listing/searching, making the when-to-use and when-not-to-use clear.

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