Where Brazilian deforestation is concentrated

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses data origin (official INPE alerts) and pricing (USDC via x402), which is useful. However, it doesn't state edge behaviors like what happens with required parameter defaults, whether both por values are mandatory, or pagination/return format behavior — a mild gap for a ranking tool.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with action then scope, then data source and cost. Zero waste — every clause carries meaning.

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 filtering/ranking tool with no output schema and zero schema coverage, this is reasonably complete: purpose, dimensions, filter options, data origin, and cost are all covered. Remaining gaps are parameter defaults and return-format details, but the core decision-making info is present for an agent.

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 the description must compensate. It explains the meaning behind 'por' (municipios or states) and 'bioma' (Amazon or Cerrado), which maps two of the four params. However, 'dias' (window length, max 2000) and 'limite' (max 50) are conceptually referenced but not explicitly annotated in prose.

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?

Specific verb (rank) + resource (municipalities/states by area cleared) + clear scope (within a time window, filterable by biome). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like desmatamento_municipio (per-municipality detail) and desmatamento_fornecedor (supplier-focused) by emphasizing the ranking orientation.

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?

States the ranking/filtering capabilities (by municipality or state, biome filter) and names the data source (INPE). The $0.01 cost note is useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use this vs desmatamento_municipio or desmatamento_fornecedor, leaving some decision ambiguity.

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