cost_of_living_brazil

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Returns' implies a read-only operation and it discloses the output content (index plus PPP rate and currency pair), which is useful. However, it says nothing about data source, update cadence, geographic granularity when uf is omitted, or whether the tool works with zero parameters.

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. Each element (index, PPP, currency pair, geography) earns its place.

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 simple read tool with no output schema and fully documented optional parameters, the description covers the core return content adequately. Minor gaps remain around scope behavior when uf is omitted and the empty-parameter case.

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 documented in the schema itself. The mention of BRL/USD loosely maps to comparar_com_dolar, but no format, default, or behavior for an empty uf is added beyond the schema.

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 (Returns) and resource (regional cost-of-living index and purchasing power parity in BRL/USD) scoped to Brazil. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like brazil_fuel_prices and brazil_grocery_basket by subject matter, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never references the sibling tools that cover adjacent Brazilian economic data. The agent must infer applicability purely from the resource name.

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