List IBGE Microdata Files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveHint. The description adds value by clarifying it lists URLs only (no downloads) and specifies return scope for POF (edition-level archives). 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?

Three sentences with no fluff. First sentence states core purpose. Second provides concrete examples. Third adds a behavioral qualifier (no download). Every sentence adds value.

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 has no output schema, the description could detail return format (e.g., array of URLs) but it sufficiently conveys it returns URL listings. The examples and qualifier make it usable. Sibling tools are more complex, but this description is complete for a simple list tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning: explains how 'survey' and 'year' interact (year required for PNAD, not for POF) and lists exact editions for POF. This exceeds schema-level descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool lists official IBGE microdata download files for supported surveys, with specific examples for PNAD Contínua and POF. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ibge_microdata_download_file by noting it lists URLs only and does not download.

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 provides clear usage context with parameter examples (survey='pnadc_trimestral' with year, survey='pof' without year). It implicitly distinguishes from download tools but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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