listar_estados

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description clearly states the source (IBGE via BrasilAPI), the output structure, and what data is not included (demographic/population). It could have mentioned idempotency or caching, but for a static list, the transparency is adequate.

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?

Description is concise with no filler, front-loaded with the main action, then provides details, usage guidance, and exclusions. Every sentence adds value.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. The context is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema has no parameters, so description carries full burden. It adds meaning by describing the output fields and usage context, compensating for the lack of param info. No extra param details needed.

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 explicitly states it lists all 27 Brazilian states with IBGE data, returning JSON array with specific fields (id, sigla, nome, região, capital). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'consultar_municipios' by specifying it does not handle municipalities.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: needing IBGE code, grouping by region, validating UF acronyms, or knowing capital. Also gives explicit negative cases: not for municipalities (refer to consultar_municipios) and not for demographic data (not in this API).

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