Query Local IBGE Parquet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds 'bounded' and query constraints (semicolons rejected), but beyond that, it does not significantly expand on behavioral traits like error handling or performance specifics.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence and usage context in the second. No unnecessary 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 full schema coverage and annotations covering safety and idempotence, the description provides sufficient context for use after conversion. It lacks explicit description of return format but that is somewhat implied by the SQL query nature.

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 the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema. The description mentions the 'microdata' view name, which is also implied in the schema text for `sql`.

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 runs a read-only DuckDB SELECT/WITH query over local Parquet files, specifying the bounded nature. It gives a specific use case (post-conversion) but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling `ibge_microdata_query_parquet_views`, though the context implies a distinction.

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 says to use this tool after converting IBGE fixed-width microdata to Parquet for repeated summaries or tabulations. It provides when-to-use context but does not mention when not to use or compare with alternatives directly.

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