Densidade Demográfica dos Estados

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds context about the data sources (Censo 2022 and territorial area), the output fields (population, area, density), and sorting order, which goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations.

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 concise, consisting of one introductory sentence, a simple Args section, and a return statement. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy or filler, making it easy to parse.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it returns (population, area, density, sorted by density) and the calculation basis. It lacks explicit output format details, but the tool's simplicity and the described return fields are sufficient for an agent to understand the result.

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 schema already describes uf_id as 'ID do estado. Omita para todos.' The description repeats this in slightly different words ('Omita para ranking completo') and notes the type is number, which is already in the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds minimal extra meaning, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool calculates demographic density (hab/km²) by combining Censo 2022 and territorial area from IBGE. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling population tools like ibge_populacao_censo2022 and ibge_populacao_estados, which only provide population counts.

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 implies usage for density calculations and notes that omitting uf_id gives a complete ranking, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like ibge_populacao_censo2022 or ibge_area_territorial. Since siblings exist but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, usage context is only implied.

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