desmatamento

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: it discloses the 2000-record cap with a reported cut, and the PRODES fallback year behavior. Missing auth/permission notes and any note on latency or quota, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then fine-grained mode details before the args list. Efficient overall, though 'Default: see above' is a slightly awkward cross-reference and the docstring formatting adds minor bulk.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described. Parameters and behavioral caps are covered; the remaining gap is the vague 'Default: see above' for ano and the absence of any pitfalls around the record cap truncation.

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, and it documents all four params: bioma with enumerated examples, sistema with prodes/deter semantics, ano with distinct PRODES vs DETER meaning, and uf with empty=whole-biome behavior. This goes well beyond the bare 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 resource and scope: 'Deforestation polygons and alerts by biome.' It is clearly distinct in subject matter from siblings like queimadas or clima, though it never explicitly names an alternative tool. The verb/resource are concrete enough that an agent knows what it fetches.

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?

Explains the two modes and when each applies: 'prodes' = polygons for the previous calendar year, 'deter' = alerts of the last 15 days. This gives clear selection context but no explicit when-not-to-use or sibling routing.

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