Obter URL da Malha Geográfica

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that it returns a URL plus usage instructions, not the actual file. No contradictions with annotations.

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 a clear summary, an 'Args' list, and concrete examples. Every sentence serves a purpose—no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Since no output schema exists, the description appropriately explains the return type (URL + instructions). It covers use cases, parameters, and examples. It does not explicitly state that 'uf' is conditionally required for 'estado'/'municipios_de_estado', but the examples imply the relationship.

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 input schema has 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds helpful examples relating 'tipo' to 'uf' and 'municipio_id', but it incorrectly states that 'svg' is the default formato while the schema declares default 'json'. This inconsistency undermines reliability.

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 ('Retorna a URL para download') and a clear resource ('malha geográfica de estados ou municípios'). It distinguishes itself from sibling IBGE tools by focusing on geographic mesh URLs rather than listing codes or querying statistics.

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 usage context: 'criar mapas, calcular áreas, análise espacial, visualizações'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the purpose and scope are clear enough to guide selection among the many sibling tools.

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