brazil_energy_tariffs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the non-authentication requirement and the data provenance (official ANEEL) plus default behaviors. It does repeat the read-only claim, but the auth and source context are genuine additions. It stops short of describing output shape or cost/rate-limit behavior.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the data source and coverage before the computations. Every clause is relevant, though the concessionaire enumeration (Light, Enel, Cemig, Copel, Equatorial, Celesc) is slightly verbose for an agent that only needs the scope.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what is returned, and it does explain the three outputs (tariffs, estimated bill, thermal parity) along with defaults and the read-only/no-auth profile. It does not describe the response structure or units, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and all three parameters (uf, consumo_mensal_kwh, incluir_paridade_termica_gas) are fully documented with defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline is 3. The description largely restates the 150 kWh default and parity definition already present in the schema, adding little beyond that.

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?

States specific verbs and resource: provides official ANEEL residential tariffs (B1) across 27 UFs, computes estimated monthly bills, and calculates LPG-vs-induction thermal parity. The scope (residential B1, state concessionaires like Light/Enel/Cemig) clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as brazil_lpg_gas_prices or brazil_fuel_prices.

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?

Usage is implied by the described computations but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many Brazil siblings. An agent can infer it is for electricity-tariff/bill questions, but nothing routes it against brazil_lpg_gas_prices even though both touch cooking-fuel cost.

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