Convert Fixed-Width IBGE ZIP Entry to Parquet

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it writes a columnar file and avoids extraction, but does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting or error handling. The added value is moderate beyond the annotations.

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, no wasted words. First sentence states the core transformation; second sentence adds benefits and use case. Optimal length for the content.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the key points: direct conversion from zip, avoiding extraction, and suitability for DuckDB queries over IBGE surveys. It could explicitly contrast with similar sibling tools (e.g., fixed_width_file_to_parquet) to complete the decision context.

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 100%, with all parameters described. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, so baseline score 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'convert' and the specific resource: a fixed-width TXT entry inside a local IBGE ZIP archive to a Parquet file using an official SAS/TXT layout. This distinguishes it from siblings like ibge_microdata_fixed_width_file_to_parquet, which operates on an already extracted file.

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?

Description explains that this tool avoids extracting the full TXT first and is useful before running repeated DuckDB queries, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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