Pesquisar Tabelas do SIDRA

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond these: it specifies a maximum of 50 results, lists return fields (id, nome, período, variáveis), and expands pesquisa_id codes with their meanings. It does not contradict the annotations, though it does not elaborate on search matching semantics.

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 and well-structured, with an Args list and a Retorna section. Every sentence contributes value: the core purpose, parameter details with examples, and return specifications contain no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with two optional parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It explains the return format (id, nome, período, variáveis), the maximum result count, and the meaning of each parameter. It does not omit any critical context needed for an agent to decide to use it or interpret results.

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 covers both parameters (100% coverage), but the description enriches them by expanding pesquisa_id codes to full survey names (CN=Censo, CA=Censo Agro, etc.) and providing concrete examples for nome_filtro (população, PIB, IPCA). This adds meaning beyond the schema, though the baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.

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 function: 'Pesquisa tabelas (agregados) disponíveis no SIDRA por palavra-chave ou pesquisa.' It uses a specific verb (pesquisar), identifies the resource (tabelas do SIDRA), and details how search can be refined by keyword or survey. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ibge_sidra_metadados_tabela and ibge_sidra_consultar_tabela, which operate on already-known tables.

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 implies usage for discovering tables: it explains the parameters and return values, making it clear this is a search/find operation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., if a table ID is already known, use metadata or consult tools instead). The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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