Describe Named Local IBGE Parquet Views

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

The description is fully consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false) and adds behavioral details: optional row counts, sample rows capped at 100, and the non-destructive nature of inspection. No contradictions.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core functionality, the second provides usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The description covers the main functionality and return information (columns, types, row counts, samples). Given the simple nature and good annotations, it is complete enough, though it could mention the DuckDB view persistence or relation to other tools more explicitly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds little beyond schema (e.g., 'capped at 100' is in the max constraint), but clarifies the use case for 'views' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Inspect local Parquet files as named DuckDB views') and the resource (Parquet files as views). It distinguishes from siblings like 'ibge_microdata_profile_parquet_views' and 'ibge_microdata_query_parquet_views' by specifying it returns columns, types, and optional samples, and positions it as a preparatory step for join queries.

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 advises using this tool 'before writing join queries' to see column names and types, providing clear context. It implies not to use it for running queries or profiling, but lacks explicit exclusions, earning a 4.

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