PIB dos Estados

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details such as returning a ranking with percentage share and the default behavior of per_capita, extending beyond what annotations offer. No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured with a clear introduction, argument list, return description, and examples. Every sentence is informative and earns its place, with 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameters, return format, and usage examples. It's complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description enhances it by providing examples (e.g., uf_id 35=SP), stating the default for per_capita, and explaining the return ranking, which adds practical meaning beyond the schema field descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states it queries the Gross Domestic Product (PIB) of Brazilian states, using a specific verb ('Consulta') and resource ('PIB dos estados'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ibge_pib_municipios by explicitly focusing on state-level data, and even provides example queries.

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 gives clear context by stating it's for regional economic analysis of Brazilian states and provides example queries, making it evident when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the state-level scope implicitly differentiates it from municipal-level siblings.

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