Query Named Local IBGE Parquet Views

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the query is bounded (maxRows), uses DuckDB, and rejects semicolons/write keywords, providing valuable context beyond 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?

The description consists of two sentences: one terse functional statement and one with use case. Every sentence earns its place, and the key action is front-loaded with 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, schema coverage, and annotations, the description explains the purpose and use case adequately. It mentions boundedness and read-only behavior but does not describe the output format, which might be inferred. Siblings like profile/describe tools are addressed elsewhere.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level usage context and examples of view names, but does not elaborate on parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 bounded read-only DuckDB SELECT/WITH queries over multiple named local Parquet views, specifying the verb, resource, and constraints. It distinguishes from siblings like ibge_microdata_query_parquet by emphasizing multiple views and joining.

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 advises use for relational microdata workflows, especially POF, with examples of views to join. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or contrast with alternatives, but the context and name provide implicit differentiation.

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