ibge_vizinhos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses the mesoregion proxy limitation and optional population data inclusion. It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but the core behavior is well explained.

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 efficiently structured with features, note, and examples. Every sentence adds value, and the layout aids quick comprehension. No redundancy.

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 tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main functionality, usage patterns, and a key limitation. It could mention the return format or error cases, but it is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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 valuable context: municipio can be code or name, uf required for names, incluir_dados includes population. It does not mention the raio parameter, but overall enhances understanding 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 the tool finds nearby/neighboring municipalities, specifies search by code or name, and explains it uses mesoregion as a proximity approximation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ibge_municipios and ibge_geocodigo.

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 examples and a note about the limitation of using mesoregion vs exact spatial neighborhood, implying when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative siblings for more precise queries, which would improve guidance.

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