Consultar indicadores de um país

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context by stating the output is 'séries temporais com valores anuais' and includes example indicator IDs with meanings, which helps the agent anticipate the response shape without an 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 well-organized with bold sections for parameters, return value, and examples. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and scannable bullets. Some redundancy exists between the initial 'Indicadores disponíveis' list and the later 'Exemplos de indicadores', but it remains focused.

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 read-only query tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned ('Séries temporais com valores anuais'), how to construct parameters, and where to find all indicator IDs. It does not cover error behavior or multi-country comparison scenarios, but those are not essential for this tool's core 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 the schema documents both parameters; however, the description adds valuable examples ('BR', 'US') and a curated list of indicator IDs ('77823: PIB per capita', '77831: IDH') that go beyond the schema's descriptions and help select correct parameter values.

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 'Retorna séries históricas de um ou mais indicadores para um país específico', clearly stating the verb (retorna), resource (séries históricas de indicadores), and scope (país específico). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ibge_listar_indicadores_paises and ibge_comparar_paises by focusing on fetching series for one country.

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 final sentence explicitly directs users to ibge_listar_indicadores_paises for the full list of 34 indicators, providing an alternative for a related need. It also implicitly scopes usage to a single country via 'país específico', but does not explicitly mention when to use ibge_comparar_paises for multi-country comparisons.

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