Ranking de Nomes Mais Populares

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds useful behavioral context: the default localidade is 'BR', returns ranking with name, frequency, and position, and clarifies that sexo can be null for both. 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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a bulleted list of parameters with defaults, a note on the return format, and a practical example. No redundant or wasted words.

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 tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers purpose, parameters, defaults, return shape, and an example. It could be improved by noting what happens with an invalid IBGE code or clarifying that ranking is across all names, but these are minor gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema: it explains 'BR' as the default for localidade, clarifies that sexo null means both genders, and provides concrete decade examples (1990, 2000, 2010) that reinforce the schema's range.

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 the tool returns the most popular names in Brazil or a specific location, with a specific verb ('Retorna') and resource ('nomes mais populares'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'ibge_nomes_frequencia' by focusing on ranking rather than individual name frequency, and even specifies the output includes position.

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 through an example ('Quais os nomes mais comuns no Brasil?') and explains the optional parameters and defaults. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'ibge_nomes_frequencia' or state when not to use this tool, 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.