Analyze PNAD Contínua Text File

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as true or false. The description adds that it operates on a small predefined set of variables, which is behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 concise paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. No wasted words.

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 (3 params, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains workflow position and limitations. Lacks explicit description of the output format, but 'predefined summary' is implied.

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 all parameters have descriptions. The tool description does not add further parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 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 tool analyzes a PNAD Contínua fixed-width TXT file using a SAS/TXT input layout. It distinguishes itself as a convenience helper for a predefined variable set, differentiating it from siblings like ibge_microdata_pnadc_analyze_zip (zip analysis) and generic query tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: after downloading/extracting PNAD microdata locally when the predefined summary matches the task. Also provides an alternative: for custom workflows, prefer converting to Parquet and using generic tools. This gives clear guidance.

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