Consultar PIB dos Municípios

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it identifies the SIDRA table, discloses the default year ('mais recente'), and specifies the return units ('mil reais e PIB per capita'). Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description enhances transparency without over-explaining.

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: two sentences plus a clean bulleted list of parameters. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by parameter explanations and return format. Every sentence adds value, with no 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description appropriately explains what is returned (GDP in thousands of reais and per capita). It also provides the SIDRA table reference, which aids traceability. It doesn't describe response structure in detail, but given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety, this is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 already provides full coverage (100%) with descriptions and examples. The description adds semantic context not present in the schema: estado_id returns all municipalities in the state, and 'ano' defaults to the most recent year. This goes beyond the schema's basic definitions, so it earns a 4.

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 it queries the GDP of Brazilian municipalities using a specific verb ('Consulta') and resource ('PIB dos municípios brasileiros') with a reference to SIDRA table 5938. This distinguishes it from siblings like ibge_pib_estados (state-level GDP) and ibge_populacao_municipio (population).

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?

It explains parameter combinations: municipio_id specifies one municipality, estado_id returns all municipalities in a state, and ano is optional with a default. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the sibling context and the scope ('municípios') make the appropriate use case clear. It lacks explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance, hence a 4.

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