População dos Estados (Censo 2022)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and side effects. The description adds behavioral detail about the return format (ranking with % of national total) and optional parameter usage, which goes beyond the structured annotations. No contradictions found.

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 a clear purpose statement, an Args section for the parameter, and a return summary. The UF mapping is lengthy but necessary as reference data. The main functionality is front-loaded, and every part serves a purpose.

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 (one optional parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the query scope, parameter semantics, and return value format, covering all necessary information for correct invocation. No significant gaps remain.

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 describes uf_id with an example, but the description enriches it with a complete mapping of UF IDs (e.g., SP=35, RJ=33) and clearly states the parameter is optional. This adds value beyond the schema's minimal description, helping the agent select valid IDs without needing external knowledge.

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 e compara a população de todos os estados ou de um estado específico.' This specifies the verb (consulta e compara), resource (população dos estados), and scope (todos ou um específico), distinguishing it from municipality-level or other population tools among siblings.

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 for when to use the tool: omit the parameter for all states or provide a UF ID for a specific one. It also notes the output is a ranking with percentage of national total. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer ibge_populacao_municipio or ibge_estimativas_populacionais.

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