Consultar População — Censo 2022

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 the return value ('Retorna: população residente total pelo Censo 2022'), but does not disclose potential error behavior, rate limits, or other behavioral nuances. This is a modest addition 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 structured with a clear one-line purpose statement, a compact Args list, and a return value line. Every sentence and detail earns its place, with no redundant or extraneous text. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 params, 1 required, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains all parameter options and the expected return value. It could be improved by mentioning error handling or behavior for invalid codes, but for a straightforward read-only query the coverage is adequate.

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 schema already covers all parameters (100% coverage), but the description goes further by explaining the semantic distinctions between 'nivel' values (e.g., 'BR'=Brasil, 'ESTADOS'=por estado) and specifying cross-parameter dependencies ('municipio' requer municipio_id). This adds meaningful value over the bare schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Consulta dados de população do Censo Demográfico 2022' (queries population data from the 2022 Demographic Census). It uses a specific verb ('Consulta') and resource ('população do Censo Demográfico 2022'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the 2022 Census as the data source.

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 guidance on how to use the 'nivel' parameter, including when specific IDs are required (e.g., 'municipio' requires municipio_id, 'estado_municipios' requires estado_id). However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like ibge_populacao_estados or ibge_estimativas_populacionais, nor does it give any exclusion criteria.

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