municipality

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not say whether this is a read-only lookup, how matching works, whether errors occur for unknown names, or any other operational trait; the field list is the only substantive context.

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 very short and front-loads the resource, but it is a fragment rather than a structured statement of what the tool does. It avoids waste but omits essential framing.

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?

Although an output schema exists and can explain return values, the description still needs to state the operation and clarify input semantics. With no annotations and no parameter documentation, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool.

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?

The single required parameter 'name' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what 'name' means or its expected format. It only implies that a municipality name is involved through the tool title and the parenthetical '(concelho)'.

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 is a noun phrase defining what a municipality is and listing data fields, but it never states an action such as 'get' or 'look up'. An agent can infer retrieval, but the purpose is largely a restatement of the tool name rather than a clear verb+resource statement.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like ine_search or where_is, nor any mention of prerequisites or expected input context. The description gives no usage conditions at all.

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