Obter informações detalhadas de um país

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the exact data fields returned (area, geography, languages, capital, currency, history), which is useful behavioral context beyond 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-structured with clear sections for parameters and return values, and it front-loads the core functionality. Some repetition with the schema exists, but it is concise and readable.

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 lookup tool with one parameter, the description fully covers purpose, parameter, and return data. Annotations cover safety, schema covers parameter validation, and the description lists return fields since there is no output schema.

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% for the single parameter, and the description repeats the schema info with examples and uppercase requirement. It does not add new semantics beyond what the schema already specifies, so baseline 3 applies.

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 retrieves complete information about a specific country using an ISO-3166-1-ALPHA-2 code. It includes the verb (retorna), resource (país), and scope (informações completas, specific country), and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'buscar_pais' by emphasizing completeness.

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 implied usage is for obtaining detailed country data when the ISO code is known. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives like ibge_buscar_pais or ibge_listar_paises, so guidance is only implicit.

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