lookup_ibge_municipio

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only mentions caching and accent-insensitivity. Lacks disclosure of what happens if no match or multiple matches, any rate limits, or side effects.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence with three key points. No filler, front-loaded with primary action. Every word 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?

Covers essential aspects: purpose, accent-insensitivity, optional parameter, caching. Output schema exists so return format is not needed. Minor gap: does not mention possible multiple results for ambiguous names.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. Adds meaning: nome is municipality name (accent-insensitive), uf is optional state. However, does not specify format for uf (e.g., 'SP' vs 'São Paulo') or that it returns a list.

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?

Clearly states the tool consults IBGE codes of Brazilian municipalities by name, with accent-insensitive matching. Distinct from sibling tools that focus on validation and parsing of documents and other lookups.

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 basic usage context (accent-insensitive, optional state, caching) but does not specify when to use vs alternatives, which are all different, but also lacks prerequisites or when-not guidance.

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