listar_localidades_pt

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is a listing operation, enumerates the scope (districts and islands known by IPMA), and states what each returned entry contains. It does not mention ordering or limits, but these are minor for a zero-parameter read-only list 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?

The description is two tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is stated first, and the cross-reference to previsao_tempo_pt adds valuable routing information without bloating the text.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is fully sufficient: it states what the list contains and how its output should be consumed by the sibling tool. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing further that parameter documentation could add. The description appropriately explains the tool's output and downstream usage without needing to describe parameter syntax.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') and a clearly bounded resource: Portuguese districts and islands known by IPMA. It also directly distinguishes itself from the only sibling tool by explaining that this tool returns locality identifiers, not forecasts.

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 explicitly tells the agent why this tool is useful: each returned entry contains the globalIdLocal needed to call previsao_tempo_pt. This makes the division of labor between the two sibling tools unmistakable.

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