Buscar Município por Nome

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the return fields (código IBGE, nome, UF, mesorregião) and scope ('todo o Brasil'), which are not available from annotations since there is no output schema.

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 concise and well-structured, leading with the main purpose followed by a short Args list and a Retorna line. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary bloat.

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's low complexity, no output schema, and well-covered parameters, the description is complete: it explains the search behavior, parameters, and return values. The lack of pagination details is acceptable because 'todos os municípios encontrados' indicates exhaustive results.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minor value by explicitly marking 'uf' as optional and stating it restricts the search, but it mostly repeats the schema information.

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 states a specific action ('Busca municípios em todo o Brasil pelo nome') with a clear resource (municípios) and scope (todo o Brasil). It differentiates from sibling tools like ibge_listar_municipios by emphasizing search-by-name rather than listing all municipalities.

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 clear context: search municipalities by name across all Brazil, optionally restricted by UF. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use an alternative tool or when not to use this one, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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