brazil_grocery_basket

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses provenance ('audited', 'electronic consumer invoices (NFC-e SEFAZ)'), which tells the agent the data is official and traceable, but says nothing about freshness, coverage, rate limits, or return shape.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and its data source are packed efficiently with zero redundancy against title or annotations.

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 two-parameter read-only query with full schema coverage, the description covers what the data is but omits how 'compares' works (across states, cities, or time), the required geographic granularity, and any indication of return shape in the absence of an output schema. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema (uf as Brazilian state code, cidade as city name). The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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 a specific verb pair (queries and compares) and a specific resource (Brazil's basic food basket prices), plus its provenance (NFC-e SEFAZ audited invoices). This clearly separates it from brazil_fuel_prices and cost_of_living_brazil by data domain, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives for price/cost queries, and no prerequisites. The only hint of usage is the word 'compares,' which implies cross-location comparison but leaves the agent to infer the trigger conditions.

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