Analyze PNAD Contínua ZIP Entry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by stating it 'avoids extracting the full microdata TXT first' and works with a 'predefined set of variables,' which are behavioral traits not fully captured by annotations. These details inform the agent about the tool's limited scope and non-destructive nature.

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 three concise sentences. The first sentence states the core function. The second explains its niche value and alternatives. The third provides usage context. Every sentence is necessary and contributes to clarity without redundancy.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and the description explains its purpose and when to use it. However, it does not specify which 'predefined set of variables' is analyzed, leaving a gap for the agent. It also does not describe the return format or results of the analysis. While adequate given annotations and sibling context, the missing variable list and output details reduce completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains the four parameters. The description mentions 'predefined set of variables' but does not enumerate them, nor does it add formatting or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the semantic burden.

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 entry inside a local ZIP archive. It specifies it's a PNAD-specific convenience helper for a small predefined set of variables, distinguishing it from siblings like 'ibge_microdata_pnadc_analyze_file' (which analyzes an extracted file) and 'ibge_microdata_fixed_width_zip_to_parquet' (which converts). The verb 'analyze' and resource 'ZIP entry' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use it after downloading a PNAD ZIP and extracting or otherwise providing the official input layout when this predefined summary matches your task.' It also advises when not to use it: 'For custom public workflows, prefer converting selected variables to Parquet and using the generic query or weighted-distribution tools.' This clearly distinguishes when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools.

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