desmatamento

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or safe. The purpose (rates and alerts) implies data retrieval, but behavioral traits like idempotency or resource consumption are not disclosed.

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?

The description is concise, uses bullet points for readability, and front-loads the core purpose. The 'Args' section is well-structured. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers parameter semantics and purpose. However, it lacks a note on the tool's read-only nature or any prerequisites, which would make it more complete for a tool with no annotations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by enumerating valid biome names (amazonia, cerrado, etc.) and system types (prodes, deter) with explanations. This goes beyond the schema's minimal type and title fields.

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?

The description clearly states the tool returns deforestation rates and alerts by biome, with a specific list of biomes and systems. It differentiates itself from sibling tools (e.g., clima, estimativa_safra) which handle other environmental or agricultural data.

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 lists valid inputs (biomes and systems) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clima or preco_diario. Usage is implied by the topic, but no when-not-to-use or alternative references are given.

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