Busca para Deep Research

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds useful context on top: empty list means no match, results are relevance-ordered, the catalog is cached in memory, and queries ignore case/accents. This goes beyond the annotation coverage without contradicting it.

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 the core behavior, then provides operational context and tool routing, and closes with query handling and read-only behavior. It is somewhat long but each sentence contributes, especially the sibling-tool exclusion and fetch handoff.

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?

For a single-parameter search tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers output shape, empty-result semantics, language handling, ordering, caching, and the correct path to related tools. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

There is only one parameter, `query`, and the schema already documents it fully. The description restates natural-language/keyword usage and accent/case behavior in English, but adds no fundamentally new semantic meaning beyond the schema description. Baseline 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.

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 action and resource: 'Searches the IBGE ... catalog and returns up to 10 matching documents as { id, title, url }, ordered by relevance.' It also differentiates itself from the ibge_* siblings by calling itself 'a catalog index, not a data query,' so an agent can identify it without opening schemas.

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 explicitly says pass returned ids to `fetch`, states that this exists for the Deep Research contract, and gives a clear exclusion rule: 'For direct questions and for data ... prefer the ibge_* tools.' This provides both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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